An investigation into the microstructural evolution and shrinkage control in internally cured mortars with milkweed fibres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presented a significant advancement in the use of Milkweed (MW) fibres as internal curing agents in low water-to-cement (w/c) cementitious materials. The research focused on how different pre-treated MW fibres, with different composition, can impact internal curing efficacy in reducing autogenous shrinkage of cement mortars. In addition, the hydration behaviour and microstructural development were revealed using a series of tests including setting time, compressive strength, flexural strength, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA/DTG). A key finding of this study is the remarkable reduction in autogenous shrinkage, with using 0.1 % wt. pre-treated MW fibres leading to up to 28 % reduction at 7 days, compared to plain mortars. Furthermore, internal curing effect resulted in narrowing the compressive strength gap between the reference mixes and those with pre-treated MW fibres in the later stages of hydration. It was also found that the removal of hemicellulose through hybrid treatment can reduce the delay in the final setting time of cement from 45 minutes to 18 minutes. Additionally, while the incorporation of N- and HT-treated MW fibres had negligible effects on drying shrinkage, the inclusion of HY-treated MW fibres led to a 15 % increase in drying shrinkage at 7 days. This difference in behaviour was attributed to the presence of lignin in N- and HT-treated fibres. Lignin was found to play a crucial role in influencing the drying shrinkage, microstructural development, and mechanical properties of MW fibre-incorporated cementitious mixes. Acting as a protective barrier, lignin shielded the MW fibres from cement infiltration into their lumina. Moreover, it served as both a physical and chemical barrier, reducing moisture transport through the capillary network during drying. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the potential of using pre-treated MW fibres as internal curing agents to effectively reduce autogenous shrinkage, with minimal compromise in terms of the compressive strength of cementitious composites.
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".