Impact of Polypropylene Fibers on the Mechanical and Durability Characteristics of Rubber Tire Fine Aggregate Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, the consequence of using rubber tire aggregates (RTA) on the durability and mechanical characteristics of polypropylene fibers (PF) reinforced concrete is evaluated. Fifteen concrete mixtures were produced and tested in the laboratory. RTA was utilized instead of fine natural aggregates (FNA) to the concrete at concentrations of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by a volumetric fraction; also, the contents of PF in the concrete mixtures were 0%, 1%, and 2% by weight fraction. Finally, the following parameters were tested for all the mixtures: compressive and tensile resistances, fracture, changes in drying shrinkage, bulk electrical resistivity, elastic moduli, and resonance occurrences. The control sample was the one without RTA and PF. According to the results, by adding RTA to the mixtures, the shrinkage deformation amplified, but the PF addition caused a decrease in the shrinkage deformation. Furthermore, adding 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% RTA, with 2% PF leads to an upsurge in the flexural resistance by 34%, 24%, 16%, and 6%, respectively, relative to the control sample without PF and RTA. Moreover, the fracture energy of mixtures increased by utilizing PF and RTA simultaneously.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".