Evaluating the Interface Fracture Performance of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Modified Magnesium Phosphate Cement and Portland Cement Concrete by Semicircular Bending Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the interfacial bonding mechanism between basalt fiber-reinforced polymer-modified magnesium phosphate cement (BFPMPC) and conventional cement concrete. An asymmetric semicircular bending specimen with a preset crack was designed to evaluate the fracture resistance of the repair interface. Interface fracture behavior was further analyzed using fracture parameter evaluation. In addition, the interfacial hydration morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) and backscattered electron imaging. The results showed that the compressive and flexural strengths of the BFPMPC mortar reached 46.1 and 11.2 MPa, respectively. Among the tested configurations, the interface subjected to Mode II fracture exhibited the highest flexural strength, and the minimum fracture toughness (1.711 MPa·m 1/2 ) occurred under Mixed mode I/II at M e = 0.346, indicating the lowest resistance to crack propagation. Fracture behavior was influenced by a cubic fit interaction between the fracture parameters K IC and K IIC , which probably resulted from microstructural heterogeneity and nonlinear stress redistribution. The SEM/EDS observations revealed that the hydration products at the interface were porous and loosely structured. Among the sub-interfacial transition zones (ITZs) in the repair interface, ITZ-4 exhibited the smallest pore gradient variation, and ITZ-3 showed the loosest structure, contributing to its reduced mechanical 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 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".