Experimental Study on Influence of Methylcellulose on Tensile and Flexural Strength of Normal Strength Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current study explores the possibility of improvement in various categories of concrete's strengths (including tensile strength, flexural strength etc.) by using methylcellulose as an additive. The effect of methylcellulose on concrete's compressive strength has also been investigated experimentally. Concrete samples were casted with several methylcellulose to binder ratios varying from 0.002 to 0.01 by weight of cement. Several tests were performed on concrete specimens including concrete cylinder and cube compression tests, split cylinder tests and modulus of rupture tests. Results showed that addition of methylcellulose increased the tensile strength of concrete. Addition of 0.2% of methylcellulose increased the tensile strength of concrete by 16%. This increase in tensile strength reached up to 73% of the control sample on addition of 1% methylcellulose. It was observed that the effect of methylcellulose on compressive strength of concrete depends upon the type of samples being tested (cube or cylinder). The compressive strength of concrete cylinders showed a plateau behavior with peak at 0.4% methylcellulose content with an increase of 18.7%. Effect of methylcellulose on concrete cylinder strength becomes insignificant beyond 0.6%. It was observed that addition of methylcellulose reduces the modulus of rupture values. The reduction in MOR was only 3% at 0.2% methylcellulose content but it grew to 30% at 1% methylcellulose content. The research presents an effective way of increasing tensile strength of concrete but without significant effect on concrete's compressive strength and modulus of rupture values. These findings can be used to determine optimum content of methylcellulose to achieve desired performance from concrete depending upon the intended use.
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".