Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation presents the results obtained through a comprehensive experimental work that was carried out in two different phases. Phase I determined the mechanical and durability performance of cementitious composites reinforced Kraft pulp fibres. Two engineered fibers, along with a commercially available unmodified fiber, were used in reinforcing cementitious materials. These fibres are called mechanically modified fibre and chemically treated fibre, and these are not yet commercially available. This study was completed to determine the strength, durability, and interfacial properties of the reinforced cementitious composites. Test results showed an increase in the permeability characteristics for the reinforced concretes. Hence, these fibres reduced the compressive strength and durability of reinforced concretes as compare to the unreinforced concrete. However, the two engineered fibres performed better than the unmodified fibre in terms of compressive strength, chloride ion permeability and water sorptivity. Further, the drying shrinkage strain was reduced considerably when only 1% chemically treated fiber was added. In phase II, a study was completed to experimentally determine the influence of partial and full replacement of slag with fly ash on the mechanical and durability performance of engineered cementitious composites. Test results showed that mixtures containing slag exhibited strain-hardening like behaviour and a comparable ductility property as engineered cementitious composites containing fly ash. Further, slag blends were found to be significant in reducing permeability in terms of rapid chloride penetration, sorptivity, and water absorption at both 28 and 90 days. However, higher drying shrinkage strains were observed for mixtures containing slag when compared to fly ash mixtures.
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".