Evaluation of Synthetic Fiber Reinforced Concrete Pipe Performance Using Three-Edge Bearing Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Synthetic fibers have recently been used in a concrete mix in an attempt to produce a new concrete pipe system that is cheaper, lighter, and more flexible than conventional steel reinforced concrete pipes. However, no structural design codes have been introduced for synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes evaluation. There is little in the literature regarding synthetic fiber applications in concrete pipes. This study focuses on the evaluation of the synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes in terms of ASTM requirements for strength, stiffness, and ductility. The performance of the synthetic fiber reinforced concrete pipes was evaluated using a three-edge bearing test in accordance with ASTM protocols and using three pipe diameters: 600, 1,200, and 1,500 mm. Fiber dosages ranged from 4.75 to 18 kg/m3, and different areas of one steel cage layer were used to reinforce the concrete pipes. The results show that using synthetic fiber increased the cracking load (produces 0.3-mm crack width), ultimate load, stiffness, and ductility of tested pipes. Also, using synthetic fiber lowered the production cost, as the reduction in the steel cage area ranged from 51 to 100 %.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".