Flexural toughness of sustainable ECC with high-volume substitution of cement and silica sand
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
This study explores the effects of high-content fly ash and limestone filler partial replacement for portland cement and silica sand, respectively on the flexural toughness parameters of engineered cementitious composites (ECC). Various groups of mixtures having variable fly ash/portland cement ratio and different levels of limestone filler were prepared. ASTM C1609, JSCE-SF4 and the Post-Crack Strength method were employed to appraise the flexural toughness parameters of the ECC mixtures at 3, 28 and 90-d. The results show that according to ASTM C1609, JSCE-SF4 and the Post-Crack Strength method, limestone filler did not significantly affect the flexural toughness, while the flexural toughness of ECC beams decreased when the fly ash content increased. Considering deflection capacity, specimens made with a FA/OPC ratio of 1.2 without limestone filler achieved higher ductility at all curing ages. Owing to its superior crack resistance and toughness compared to normal concrete, ECC with high fly ash content and limestone filler could be a sustainable alternative construction material in diverse civil engineering applications. ECC with enhanced ductility compared to normal concrete could offer increased crack resistance, durability and better resilience.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it