MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162210226 · doi:10.1680/jmacr.20.00235

Engineering-based finite-element approach to appraise reinforced concrete structures affected by alkali–aggregate reaction

2021· article· en· W3162210226 on OpenAlexaff
R. V. Gorga, Leandro Sanchez, Beatriz Martín‐Pérez, Martin Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueMagazine of Concrete Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlkali–aggregate reactionFinite element methodAggregate (composite)Structural engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling the expansion and damage generated by alkali–aggregate reaction (AAR) in reinforced concrete structures is quite complex, yet necessary to obtain accurate predictions of the structural response of distressed members. Several AAR models have been developed to predict expansion and damage at the material (microscopic) or the structural (macroscopic) scales. However, those models tend to either neglect or overemphasise the critical physicochemical parameters of the reaction, which limits their applicability. Therefore, a new simple yet reliable finite-element approach is proposed to fill this gap. It accounts for the most important parameters affecting AAR through an engineering approach, without the need for non-technical guesses or to ‘fit’ model parameters. The proposed model is validated through the computational simulation of reinforced concrete specimens cast and monitored in the laboratory. Results show that AAR expansion was accurately simulated by accounting for the anisotropic (stress state dependent) nature of the reaction, mechanical properties deterioration and an analytical equation capable of representing AAR's free expansion. Next steps include validating the approach by simulating real structures and incorporating phenomena like leaching and combined distress mechanisms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagazine of Concrete ResearchSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207