Splitting tensile strength of natural aggregates, recycled aggregates and brick chips concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental study and analysis of the splitting tensile strength (ft) and relationship between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength (f′c) of concrete made of three types of coarse aggregates; namely crushed brick chips (CBC), natural stone aggregates (SA) and recycled concrete aggregates (RCA). Four concrete mixtures with different target strengths were prepared and for each mixture, six cylindrical samples were subjected to split-cylinder tests and another six cylindrical samples were subjected to compression tests at 28 d. Raw test data were then analysed according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 214 and the average tensile strength obtained was compared with the relevant compressive strength based on statistical curve fitting. This study shows that while the ACI equation and equations suggested by other authors for the correlation between splitting tensile strength and compressive strength are applicable for SA concrete, they are not quite applicable for concrete made with CBC or RCA. Thus, new empirical equations are derived to predict the splitting tensile strength from concrete compressive strength for concrete made with CBC and RCA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".