Strain rate sensitivity of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHP-FRC) is relatively new cementitious material, which has been developed to enhance material performance such as, durability, workability and strength. UHP-FRC has an outstanding dynamic performance with high capacity to absorb damage. Because of its superior performance under dynamic loading, UHP-FRC has been induced in structures where dynamic resistance is required. It is proven that like other concrete materials, UHP-FRC strength increases significantly when subjected to high strain rates. The objective of this study is to develop understanding of strain rate sensitivity of UHP-FRC with 2% steel fiber by volume fraction and plain High Strength Concrete (HSC). Compressive and flexural tensile strength of each concrete composite were investigated to evaluate and compare their strain rate sensitivity through dynamic increase factor (DIF). The specimens were tested under six different strain rates; three in quasi-static and three in dynamic domain. Strain rates in quasi-static domain conducted by MTS test machine and strain rates in dynamic domain conducted using the drop hammer technique. The test results revealed that UHP-FRC exhibits less strain rate sensitivity while HSC show much higher rate sensitivity in comparison to other materials.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".