Investigation on the Performance of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete Reinforced with Fibers for Rigid Pavement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract - Fly ash has significant potential in high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC) due to its favorable physico-chemical properties. Extensive research in India and abroad has examined its strength and performance characteristics. In India, most ready-mixed concrete plants in the private sector commonly use 20–30% fly ash as part of the cementitious material, whereas several government agencies remain cautious. At construction sites with batching plants, typical fly ash replacement levels are around 25–30%. In contrast, site-mixed concrete using tilting drum mixers rarely uses fly ash directly, though blended cements containing 22–32% fly ash are widely used; in fact, nearly 60–70% of cement produced in India is blended. HVFAC generally replaces more than 50% of cement with fly ash and requires very low water content. To maintain workability, high-range water reducers or superplasticizers are used. Although HVFAC exhibits lower early compressive strength than conventional concrete, it develops excellent long-term strength along with improved elastic modulus, flexural, tensile, and abrasion performance. Research at CANMET-MTL in Canada initiated the development of HVFAC in 1985, with an emphasis on low cement content, a low water-to-binder ratio, and fly ash contents of up to 55%. HVFAC offers reduced CO₂ emissions, lower environmental impact, and improved durability, making it suitable for mass and structural concrete applications. Key Words: High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete (HVFAC), Blended Cement, Fly Ash Utilization, Sustainable Construction, Cement Replacement, and Mechanical and Durability Properties.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 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".