Influence of fibre type on the shear behaviour of engineered cementitious composite beams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear behaviour of large-scale engineered cementitious composite (ECC) beams reinforced with different types of fibre was evaluated. Four types of fibre were used: 8 and 12 mm long polyvinyl alcohol fibres (PVA8 and PVA12), 19 mm long polypropylene fibres (PP19) and 13 mm long steel fibres (SF13). An additional normal concrete (NC) beam of comparable compressive strength was cast and tested for comparison. The performance of all the test beams was evaluated through their load–deflection curves, cracking behaviour, first crack load, diagonal crack load, ultimate load, ductility and energy absorption capacity. The ultimate capacity and cracking moment of all the test beams were also compared with theoretical values estimated by some design code equations. The results indicated that, compared with the NC beam, all the ECC beams showed better performance in terms of cracking behaviour, shear capacity, ductility and energy absorption. The ECC beam reinforced with PVA8 fibres showed the highest shear strength and ductility of all the ECC beams with other polymeric fibres. Longer PVA fibres appeared to be less efficient than shorter ones. The beam reinforced with PP19 showed the lowest performance, while the use of SF13 proved to be the most effective in improving the first crack load, ultimate load, ductility and energy absorption capacity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it