Tensile behavior of crack-repaired ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete under corrosive environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the influence of crack repair using epoxy sealing on the tensile response of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) under corrosive environments. Three different crack widths, i.e., 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 mm, and two different corrosion durations, i.e., 4 and 10 weeks, were considered. The test results indicated a minor change in the tensile performance of UHPFRC with the smallest crack width of 0.1 mm under corrosive environments for up to 10 weeks. This is due to the restriction of ferric oxide formation at the densified fiber–matrix interface. A wider crack width accelerated the steel fiber corrosion and noticeably influenced the post-cracking tensile behavior. Considering the corrosion duration of 4 weeks, the tensile strength of cracked UHPFRC with a width of 0.3 mm or greater increased by approximately 12–17% owing to the moderate steel fiber corrosion. However, the tensile strength decreased during the longer corrosion duration of 10 weeks by ruptures of excessively corroded steel fibers. Crack repair using epoxy sealing increased the tensile strength of cracked UHPFRC by approximately 10% and effectively prevented further corrosion of steel fibers at the crack location, leading to higher tensile strength even after 10 weeks of corrosion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".