MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328106142 · doi:10.18280/acsm.470105

Crack Pattern of Lightweight Concrete under Compression and Tensile Test

2023· article· en· W4328106142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Herman Parung, Miswar Tumpu, M. W. Tjaronge, A. Arwin Amiruddin, Muhammad A. Walenna, Mansyur Mansyur

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Hasanuddin
KeywordsStructural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthCompression (physics)Materials scienceCompression testTensile testingTest (biology)Composite materialForensic engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A type of cellular foam concrete called lightweight concrete is made of cement paste or mortar with air spaces or structural pores created by the use of a foaming agent.Examining the crack pattern of lightweight concrete under compressive and tensile loads is the goal of this study.A lightweight concrete specimen was made using foam, fine aggregate, and Portland Composite Cement.Foam agent and water are combined in a 3:10 ratio to produce foam.There were three different foam volume variants used: 15.7 liters, 25.12 liters, and 37.68 liters.As a sample, a cylinder with dimensions of 10 cm by 20 cm was employed.Using compressive and indirect tensile strength tests at curing ages of 3, 7, and 28 days, the crack pattern of lightweight concrete was assessed.The findings revealed that the fracture pattern for the compressive and indirect tensile strength tests was almost same; because the crack pattern was parallel to the direction of the load, it was categorized as a columnar crack pattern at 3, 7, and 28 days.Throughout time, the frequency of crack patterns in lightweight concrete decreased.It might be said that concrete becomes more resistant as it ages.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207