To identify effect of fibers on durability properties of concrete due to chloride penetration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete durability is a paramount concern due to its, direct impact on the infrastructure longevity and structural integrity. Rapid chloride penetration and electrical resistivity are pivotal parameters for assessing durability, where chloride ingress leads to reinforcement corrosion and resistivity reflects pore connectivity and moisture content. This study investigates the efficacy of diverse fiber blends and curing compounds in bolstering concrete durability, employing the Electric Resistivity Test and Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) for evaluation. Through a comprehensive literature review and experimental exploration, various fiber types, proportions, and curing compounds were scrutinized. Concrete specimens reinforced with 0.66% Steel fibers, SF 0.36% + 0.3% GF, SF 0.36% + 0.3% PPF were cured with different compounds and tested for chloride penetration and electrical resistivity. Results unveiled the substantial decrease of chloride penetration and electric resistivity in fiber-reinforced concrete compared to plain concrete is approximately 25% and 65% respectively. Amongst all the curing compounds used Fosroc concure 1315 and Razon CCC 105 ACY exhibits best results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".