Constitutive Model of Uniaxial Compressive Behavior for Roller-Compacted Concrete Using Coal Bottom Ash Entirely as Fine Aggregate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coal bottom ash (CBA) is one of the by-products that can be employed as fine aggregate to replace natural sand in concrete. Owing to the very low water demand, roller-compacted concrete (RCC) has the potential to use CBA as fine aggregate at a high proportion. However, little research about RCC using CBA entirely as fine aggregate has been conducted. In this study, the uniaxial compressive strength, deformation, stress–strain curves, and splitting tensile strength of CBA-containing RCC (CBA RCC) were studied to bridge this gap. The compressive strength, elasticity modulus, and splitting tensile strength of all mixtures decreased with increasing CBA content. The relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of CBA RCC was proposed, which is very close to that recommended by the CEB-FIP code. The uniaxial compressive constitutive model based on the continuum damage theory can well illustrate the stress–strain relationship of CBA RCC. The growth process of damage variable demonstrates the hybrid effect of coarse aggregate, cement, and compacting load on delaying damage under uniaxial compression. The theoretical formula can also accurately illustrate the stress–strain curves of RCC presented in the literature studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".