Evaluating Fresh Properties of Non-Dispersive Reactive Powder Concrete: A Novel Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel testing methodology was developed in this study to efficiently evaluate the non-dispersibility of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) that does not disperse (Non-Dispersive RPC or NDRPC) -a concrete variant derived from the amalgamation of RPC and non-dispersive concrete.To study the fresh behavior of NDRPC, a series of fourteen mixes were prepared, each incorporating an Anti-Wash Admixture (AWA) concentration ranging between 0.5% and 2%.Fresh state properties were identified through a series of Slump Flow, V Funnel, L-box, and Setting Time tests, while washout resistance was determined through modified Stream Test, Turbidity, and pH tests.The findings constitute the first efficient evaluation of the non-dispersibility of fresh Self-Compacted Mortar (SCM) or concrete mixtures when placed underwater, as ascertained by V Funnel and L-box tests under similar conditions.Experimental results indicated a synergistic effect between AWA and High Range Water Reducer Admixture (HRWRA) concentrations on the properties, which could be counterbalanced by increasing the incorporation of silica fume to 30%.Notably, a significant reduction in washout loss was observed when silica fume replacement was increased to 30%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it