Evaluation of Mechanical Parameters of Bacterial Concrete
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
Conventional concrete is prone to cracking under tensile load, despite its good compressive strength. Recently, biological agents have been applied to heal the cracks in concrete, making concrete structures more serviceable. This paper mainly attempts to evaluate the mechanical properties of bacteria-based self-healing concrete. Two bacteria were selected as the bioagents in concrete, namely, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus halodurans. The concentration of the bioagents were set to 10 5 ~10 7 cell/mL in water. Then, the two bacteria were applied to cracked concrete to cure the cracks. After curing for several days, the bacteria-based self-healing concrete was subjected to compressive and flexural tests to estimate its mechanical parameters. The results show that the self-healing concretes cured for 14d and 28d had a 7% and 18% higher compressive strength than conventional concrete, respectively; the self-healing concretes cured for 14d and 28d had a 11% and 28% higher flexural strength than the conventional concrete, respectively. Thus, the bioagents could effectively heal the surface cracks on concrete, and make the concrete imperviable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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