MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322102435 · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01959

Development of high-early-strength low-carbon engineered cementitious composites with calcium sulfoaluminate cement incorporating high-volume fly ash

2023· article· en· W4322102435 on OpenAlexaff
Xinhua Cai, Duo Yang, Duo Zhang, Jinyang Cui, Weikang Wang, Lei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Construction Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltimate tensile strengthMaterials scienceFly ashComposite materialCementCementitiousDuctility (Earth science)Composite numberCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineered cementitious composites (ECC) is an ultra-durable construction material owing to its high tensile ductility and intrinsic crack width control. Here, a high-early-strength ECC (HE-ECC) was developed using calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement with high-volume fly ash to facilitate rapid and sustainable repair application. Two water-to-binder ratios (0.25 and 0.35) and four fly ash dosages (50–80 wt% by binder mass) were investigated, and PVA fiber was added at 1.5 vol%. The composite mechanical properties were analyzed in association with the early hydration process. At 1 day, the HE-ECC was found to attain a tensile strain capacity of 3–4% while maintaining an ultimate tensile strength of 2–5 MPa. Most groups can maintain a tensile strain capacity over 3% at 28 days with an ultimate tensile strength of 3.1–5.4 MPa. The environmental impacts for producing HE-ECC can be reduced significantly, accounting for ∼38.7% less energy and ∼44.6% less carbon emission compared to conventional ECC. The satisfying early age mechanical performance makes it applicable for many constructions and the high sustainability of HE-ECC makes it promising to reduce environmental impacts substantially.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations45
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Construction MaterialsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207