Ductility and flexure of lightweight expanded clay basalt fiber reinforced concrete slab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevance. The load on a reinforced concrete slab with high strength lightweight aggregate concrete leads to increased brittleness and contributes to large deflection or flexure of slabs. The addition of fibers to the concrete mix can improve its mechanical properties including flexure, deformation, toughness, ductility, and cracks. The aims of this work are to investigate the flexure and ductility of lightweight expanded clay concrete slabs reinforced with basalt fiber polymers, and to check the effects of basalt fiber mesh on the ductility and flexure. Methods. The ductility and flexural/deflection tests were done on nine engineered cementitious composite (expanded clay concrete) slabs with dimensions length 1500 mm, width 500 mm, thickness 65 mm. These nine slabs are divided in three reinforcement methods types: three lightweight expanded clay concrete slab reinforced with basalt rebars 10 mm (first slab type); three lightweight expanded clay concrete slab reinforced with basalt rebars 10 mm plus dispersed chopped basalt fiber plus basalt fiber polymer (mesh) of cells 2525 mm (second slab type); three lightweight expanded clay concrete slab reinforced with basalt rebars 10 mm plus dispersed basalt fiber of length 20 mm, diameter 15 m (third slab type). The results obtained showed physical deflection of the three types of slab with cracks. The maximum flexural load for first slab type is 16.2 KN with 8,075 mm deflection, second slab type is 24.7 KN with 17,26 mm deflection and third slab type 3 is 32 KN with 15,29 mm deflection. The ductility of the concrete slab improved with the addition of dispersed chopped basalt fiber and basalt mesh.
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".