Performance of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Enhanced with Sugarcane Bagasse Ash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) has good cementitious property, previous researchers have primarily aimed to improve the mechanical performance of conventional concrete or cement-based composites. Research is lacking on ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC), especially regarding tensile self-sensing properties. This paper aimed to comprehensively evaluate the SCBA effect on the UHPC’s mechanical, electrical, and tensile self-sensing properties. The results showed that SCBA below the critical incorporation concentration (CIC) improved the UHPC’s mechanical properties compared to steel fibers alone. Furthermore, adding 3.0wt% SCBA remarkably enhanced the UHPC mechanical properties where the compressive, flexural, and tensile strengths increased by 13.1%, 17.4%, and 20.6%, respectively. The SCBA content of 0.3wt% achieved the maximum UHPC electrical resistivity since values smaller or greater than this content decreased the resistivity. The SCBA-enhanced UHPC showed better tensile stress-sensing performance than UHPC without SCBA due to improved linearity and reversibility, lower hysteresis, higher sensitivity, and superior repeatability. UHPC with 0.3wt% SCBA achieved the best linearity, while UHPC with 0.9wt% SCBA showed the highest sensitivity, lowest hysteresis, and best repeatability. Overall, the content of 0.9wt% SCBA is the best in improving the overall mechanical, electrical, and tensile self-sensing performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".