Assessing abrasion performance of self-consolidating concrete containing synthetic fibers using acoustic emission analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key objective of this investigation was to evaluate the abrasion resistance of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) with and without synthetic fibers (SynFs). The abrasion resistance of normal concrete was also investigated in this study for comparison. The abrasion test was performed on concrete specimens according to the rotating-cutter method along with continuous monitoring of acoustic emission (AE) using attached AE sensors. The effects of changing concrete type and incorporating various types (flexible and semi-rigid) and lengths of SynFs on the abrasion behaviour were investigated with the aid of AE analysis. AE signal characteristics such as amplitude, signal strength, number of hits, and duration were gathered during testing. Furthermore, the collected AE data was used to complete b -value analysis as well as intensity analysis resulting in three additional parameters: b -value, severity ( S r ), and historic index ( H ( t )). The results showed that the AE parameters were directly correlated with the abrasion damage in all tested mixtures. Adding SynFs to all SCC mixtures enhanced their abrasion resistance. The flexible fibers variety exhibited better abrasion performance on average than the semi-rigid fibers. Meanwhile, longer fibers showed lower abrasion resistance than the shorter ones with the same type. The results also indicated that AE intensity analysis was able to determine the ranges for H ( t ) and S r that identify the extent of damage due to abrasion of SynF-reinforced SCC.
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) | 0.000 | 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".