Engineered cementitious composites (ECC): a review on properties, design, sustainability, and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) are advanced fibre-reinforced materials developed to enhance tensile strength, ductility, crack resistance, and long-term durability. This review explores recent research on ECC, focusing on its mechanical advantages, material composition, and sustainable design strategies. ECCs typically comprise cement, fine aggregate, fly ash, and synthetic fibres, with coarse aggregate excluded to improve crack control. Unlike conventional concrete, ECC exhibits strain-hardening behaviour with tensile strains reaching 2–8% and fine crack widths below 60 μm. These properties enable ECC to absorb significant energy and undergo large deformations without brittle failure. The use of synthetic fibres and high cement content improves performance but raises challenges such as increased cost, shrinkage, and carbon emissions. Strategies to mitigate these include using supplementary cementitious materials and agricultural fibres. ECC has demonstrated effective performance in infrastructure applications such as bridge link slabs, seismic retrofitting, overlays, and repair of deteriorated concrete elements. Its excellent crack control and durability make it suitable for enhancing structural resilience and reducing maintenance demands. Finally, challenges and future directions for cost reduction and improved sustainability are discussed.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".