The Efficiency of Non-Destructive Testing to Estimate the Damage Level of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Exposed to High Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of determining the extent of damage in fibered concrete after being subjected to high temperatures, using non-destructive methods was investigated. The study was conducted on four concrete mixtures with different fiber types. The specimens underwent a curing process at 23 °C before being exposed to different high temperatures of 400 °C, 600 °C, and 800 °C. After cooling to ambient temperature, various non-destructive tests including ultrasonic pulse velocity testing (UPV), the resonance frequency test (RF), the dynamic modulus of elasticity (Ed), the thermal conductivity test (λ), and Schmid Rebound Hammer (SRH), were performed. To evaluate the sensitivity of non-destructive techniques to assess the damage of fiber-reinforced concrete, the Lemaitre coefficient was used as a variable to describe the extent of the damage. The results indicated that the highest damage levels were obtained through the modulus of elasticity technique regardless of the type of concrete mixture or temperature exposure. There was also a potential agreement found between thermal and ultrasonic methods in evaluating the thermal degradation of concrete.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".