Influences of Cooling Regime on the Residual Strength of SCCIncorporating PPF after Fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims at the effects of elevated temperatures and cooling regimes on the fire resistance of self-compacting concrete incorporating polypropylene fibre (SCCPPF) and normal self-compacting concrete (SCC).Both concretes were exposed to elevated temperature of 200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C and 800 °C for a duration of one hour.After fire, the concrete specimens (φ100×200mm) were cooled to room temperature using two methods of air cooling and water cooling.The results indicate that the SCC specimens exhibited explosive spelling at elevated temperature, which were dried previously for 3, 5 and 7 days before testing.On the contrary, the SCCPPF specimens without dried previously didn't present explosive spelling.The surface cracks of both kinds of concrete specimens become evident by increasing temperature.The surface cracks of specimens with water cooling were wider and concentrated each other compared with those of SCC.The strengths of both specimens decreased with increasing temperature.Different cooling regimes affect the residual compressive strength of concrete.When the temperature reached to 200 °C, the residual compressive strengths of the specimens with air cooling are higher than those of the specimens with water cooling.For the concrete specimens subjected to the temperatures of 200 °C and 400 °C, two cooling regimes resulted in almost the same residual compressive strength for the SCCPP specimens, but the SCC specimens presented lower residual compressive strengths with water cooling than those with air cooling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".