Diseño de mezcla de concreto translúcido aplicando agregados que permiten el paso de luz, Lima – 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work is to carry out a mix design for translucent concrete using aggregates that allow the passage of light, therefore, an analysis related to the translucent concrete mix design was carried out, in a time interval of 10 years, to define what type of aggregates, additives and w/c ratio, are the ones that will provide the greatest benefit to the final product. For this, a mix design for translucent concrete was proposed, referring to ACI 211.1, since different aggregates such as tempered glass, quartz, white cement and also a plasticizing additive will be used to obtain an optimal design for translucent concrete. In addition, application cases with additive were carried out, in order to obtain different mix designs with the properties of translucency and resistance to compression, with these designs it was concluded that quartz and Ottawa sand are the aggregates that most favor the passage of light, however, using glass at 40% and quartz at 60% in the mix design gives moderate translucency to the mix, finally it was defined that the possible applications of this type of concrete are given for glass block type partitions and false ceiling , that is, for non-bearing aesthetic structures.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".