MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174079355 · doi:10.21838/uhpc.9667

Repair of Concrete Structures Exposed to Severe Conditions Using UHPFRC

2019· article· en· W3174079355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William H. Clements, Gonzalo Julian Peña Cruz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecast concreteDurabilityFormworkExpansion jointBridge (graph theory)EngineeringFiber-reinforced concreteStructural engineeringBridge deckDeckForensic engineeringReinforced concreteMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years, ultra-high performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) has been used in North America for accelerated bridge construction where the new bridge deck consists of precast concrete slabs linked by UHPFRC connections cast in the field. The dense and fibrous material has interesting mechanical properties for reducing the width of joints in the field and the durability parameters exhibited by UHPFRC ensure extremely durable connections. Durability of the structures is a key element for new construction today, but this factor also remains essential in the North American concrete repair industry. More specifically in Canada, the government has been investing significant amounts of money for years in order to extend the lifespan of structures in service that have been highly damaged by severe exposure conditions or even to correct errors made during initial construction. A Canadian authority awarded a concrete repair pilot project in 2018. for the rehabilitation of different components of an existing viaduct. UHPFRC was specified by the authority in order to achieve thin repairs (less than 2 inches) that were both aesthetically pleasing and durable. As it was desired to complete the repairs within a short time window, avoid cold joints in the repair, to evaluate the potential placement method for larger volumes and there was limited access to formwork, it was decided that the UHPFRC should be pumped in-place. Off-site mockup trials were organized in order to evaluate numerous aspects of the project such as material performance, handling and placement of the material, the curing regime, the substrate preparation and the formwork design. The proprietary UHPFRC selected for the application had a specified flow ranging from 180 mm to 250 mm (7.1” to 9.8”) as per ASTM C1856. The ultimate compressive strength and the ultimate tensile strength of the material indicated by the manufacturer were respectively 120 MPa (17.4 ksi) and 9.5 MPa (1375 psi). At 28 days of age the selected UHPFRC provided a freeze-thaw durability factor of 100% when tested in accordance with ASTM C666, a salt scaling visual rating of 0 and mass loss of 0.02 kg/m2 (0.004 lb/ft2) when tested in accordance with ASTM C672 and a chloride ion penetrability of less than 100 coulombs (negligible) when tested in accordance with ASTM C1202. The material characterization (plastic and hardened properties as well as durability parameters) was achieved by adopting current standards used in Canada (CSA and ASTM). A modified test method was implemented to evaluate the tensile behavior of the UHPFRC (ASTM C1609 [modified] complimented by a reverse analysis calculation) and the bond strength of the material (direct tensile test) to the substrate was evaluated following CSA A23.2-6B. On-site the UHPFRC was batched using several pan-mixers and a skid-steer vehicle with a mobile mixer attachment was used to transport the material from the mixers to the concrete pump to ensure continuous placement of the material into the formwork (Figure 2). The purpose of this presentation is to discuss and highlight different phases of the project. Although pumping UHPFRC is not a common practice, it was successfully achieved thanks to countless efforts displayed by all of the parties involved in the pilot project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207