Mechanical, physical and durability performance of engineered cementitious composites prepared with calcium aluminate cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to fill a gap in existing studies by exploring the use of calcium aluminate cement (CAC) as an eco-friendly substitute for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) in engineered cementitious composites (ECCs). The study investigates the impact of CAC, both with and without the presence of fly ash (FA), on the mechanical, physical, durability and microstructural properties of ECC–CAC mixtures. Various proportions of FA to CAC up to 1.5 were considered, while assessing different engineering parameters of compressive and flexural strengths, ductility, ultrasonic measurements, chloride penetrability and drying shrinkage. Moreover, scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray analysis and X-ray diffraction were used to analyse the reaction products related to CAC and/or FA in selected mixtures. Higher strengths of CAC–ECC were achieved at earlier curing ages, although the transformation of CAC’s metastable phases led to reduced strengths in ECC–CAC mixtures compared to the control ECC during extended curing periods. Furthermore, the combination of FA with CAC played a crucial role in avoiding the hydrates conversion and minimising the shrinkage in CAC–ECC, achieving even lower shrinkage levels than those observed in control OPC–ECC.
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".