Crack-Free, High-Performance Concrete Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to some recent research, virtually crack-free, high-performance concrete structures are possible. This article describes how Montreal is enforcing specifications on detailing, placing and curing of high-performance concrete to ensure that structures are virtually crack-free. This goal involves coordination with all parties involved in the process. The designer must take into account the shape, size and restraint conditions of the particular element and allow volume changes to occur without creating tensile stresses that exceed the tensile strength of the concrete. Materials must be selected and proportioned to minimize volume change while producing a concrete that is workable during placing, and with the strength and durability needed to perform well under service conditions. The constructor must ensure that concrete is placed at a proper consistency and thoroughly consolidated to its maximum density to develop its maximum tensile strength. Uncontrolled autogenous shrinkage is the cause of much of the cracking of high-performance concrete. The curing subcontractor therefore must maintain a permanently humid surface and supply enough external water to fill the pores created by volumetric contraction during hydration to ensure that water never escapes from the capillaries near the surface. A highway reconstruction project in downtown Montreal is used to illustrate the practical application of these concepts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".