MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386264852 · doi:10.1061/jmcee7.mteng-16125

Evaluation of Early-Age Volume Changes of Shotcrete Using Ring Specimens

2023· article· en· W4386264852 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Menu, Benoı̂t Bissonnette, Marc Jolin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Properties and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShotcreteShrinkageUltimate tensile strengthCrackingMaterials scienceComposite materialCreepTensile strainGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, both free and restrained shrinkage tests were performed to derive the total tensile strain behavior (i.e., creep effect) of wet-mix and dry-mix shotcretes. A simple analysis procedure is presented to quantify the tensile creep properties of shotcrete using results obtained from standard ring tests and mechanical property tests. The results showed that the rings dried along the axial direction had higher total tensile strain properties compared with those dried along the radial direction. The results further showed that coarse aggregate content of shotcrete affects the total tensile strain properties. Similarly, adding silica fume, fly ash, polymer, shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA), and crack-reducing admixture (CRA) reduces the total tensile strain properties of shotcrete. However, the decrease observed when using SRA and CRA does not increase the risk of early-age cracking because shrinkage is also reduced proportionally. Thus, a higher total tensile strain capacity is only beneficial in reducing cracking if it does not cause a proportional increase in shrinkage. Overall, the analysis indicates that the effect of creep is a crucial factor in the evaluating of the risk and sensitivity to cracking of shotcrete.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Properties and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207