The influence of natural and synthetic fibers on mixed mode I/II fracture behavior of cement concrete materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluated mixed mode I/II fracture toughness of fiber-reinforced concrete using cracked semi-circular bend (SCB) specimens subjected to three-point bending test. Additionally, a comparison was made between the experimental results and the estimations made by different theoretical criteria. Natural and synthetic fibers at various concentrations were used in this study. After producing cracks in SCB specimens at different inclination angles to induce different mixed mode loading conditions (from pure mode I to II), the fracture toughness of SCB specimens was determined. Furthermore, the compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strength of natural and synthetic fiber-reinforced concrete were measured after 7 and 28 days of curing. While there is an increase in the aforementioned strengths with fiber content increase, 0.3% was found to be the optimum percentage regarding fracture toughness for both fibers. Also, the comparison between the experimental and theoretical results showed that generalized maximum tangential stress criterion estimated the experimental data satisfactorily.
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) | 0.000 | 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".