Innovations to Improve 3D Concrete Printing of Portland Cement-Steel Slag Blended Mortars
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
This paper identifies typical issues and their remedies during lab-scale 3D printing of Portland cement-steel slag blended mortars. This study used a printer with an accelerator in its feeding system immediately before the extrusion stage. Accelerator dosage can be regulated for such a printer even during printing. However, a higher or lower than optimum dosage may lead to excessive flow or dry surface with a potential risk of cracking in the individual layers. Through the current study, two hollow cylindrical geometry and one hollow square geometry were printed. The print quality was evaluated by investigating various variables, such as considering two superplasticizers with different open times and using constant and variable accelerator dosages during printing. The compatibility of superplasticizers was found to affect the open time and, hence, the print quality with layer shortening and breaking. Changes in accelerator dosage during printing to compensate for the changing rheology were similarly notable, especially in terms of inconsistencies in printed layers. However, the use of a compatible superplasticizer was determined to mitigate both issues. Additionally, shrinkage-reducing admixture was recommended for mortars to avoid cracking due to early-age drying shrinkage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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