Physical Properties and Durability of Green Fiber-Reinforced Concrete for Road Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dry shrinkage and brittleness are outstanding problems with the concrete in road bridges. However, the road bridge concrete has not been systematically studied. No research has fully considered the influence of age on the physical-mechanical properties of road bridge concrete. There are few reports on how the green fiber dosage affects road bridge concrete. This paper analyzes the physical properties and durability of green fiber-reinforced concrete for road bridges (RBGFRC). Firstly, calculation methods were provided for physical-mechanical properties of RBGFRC, such as crack resistance, shear capacity of oblique section, and bending capacity of normal section. Next, the physical-mechanical properties of RBGFRC were investigated in terms of flexural strength, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and early cracking strength; the durability of the material was discussed from three aspects: carbonation resistance, resistance to freeze-thaw cycles, and porosity. Experimental results verify the good physical properties and durability of RBGFRC. The research provides a reference for applying RBGFRC in other scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".