MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2007619266 · doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000508

Paraffin Wax as a Sealant in Sorptivity Testing

2012· article· en· W2007619266 sur OpenAlexaff
M.A. Nunes, Charles Martin Ormsby, Vimal N. Patel, Ting Peng, Andrew J. Boyd

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSorptivityMaterials scienceAir entrainmentComposite materialDurabilityWaxThermoplasticForensic engineeringEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The durability and sustainability of concrete structures is a prime socioeconomic concern of contemporary society. The lifecycle of these structures is typically determined by the rate of moisture ingress, in which dissolved and unwanted substances are transported into the structure. Therefore finding a sufficient means to measure these rates is of utmost importance. A sorptivity testing scheme as outlined by a commonly used standard can be a useful means of measuring how quickly liquid can be transported unidirectionally through concrete samples in the laboratory. Currently the standard prescribes that disc specimens 100 mm in diameter and 50-mm thick be sealed in such a manner to ensure unidirectional flow through one, unsealed face of the sample, while all other surfaces are appropriately sealed. However the standard does not specify how this seal is to be achieved. Furthermore, differing methods have yielded a likewise array of varied results, which may not be representative of the true sorptivity. The objective of this paper is to propose a simple but effective means of sealing the specimens that will yield more consistent results, which are more representative of the actual absorption properties of the concrete. This was accomplished by studying the performance of electrical insulation tape and cellophane (as suggested in the standard) against paraffin wax using three different mixture designs, as follows: (1) involving normal strength concrete without air entrainment, (2) a normal strength concrete mixture with air entrapment, and (3) self-consolidating concrete without air entrapment. The prepared specimens were subjected to various freeze-thaw cycling periods, conditioned, and then tested for sorptivity. Batches of samples were exposed to freeze-thaw cycling periods of 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 300 cycles. Within each group of samples, half of the specimens were sealed with electrical tape and cellophane, and the other half were sealed with paraffin wax in order to conduct sorptivity testing. Specimens coated in wax typically exhibited lower absorption values than those wrapped in tape. Furthermore, the tape would not adhere perfectly with the concrete at the edge formed by the cylindrical wall and the exposed surface, resulting in increased sorptivity values. Statistical analysis was done on the rates of early-age (0–6 h) and late-age (1–8 days) sorptivity by using the F-test to examine variability (with an 80% confidence interval) and the student-t test was used to evaluate the significance of differences in sample means. Generally, sorptivity rates were higher for taped samples than those for waxed samples. These results further reinforced visual observations. The waxed samples yielded more reliable results primarily because they did not absorb moisture artificially along the sides in the manner as observed in the taped specimens. Moreover, the paraffin wax sealant method also resulted in less variability within test results. Therefore it was believed that the wax facilitated more representative results of the true sorptivity. It was suggested that the procedures of the common standard discussed in this paper should be refined such that the sealing of test specimens should be done with the use of paraffin wax, or some other similar substance, such as silicone, which is impermeable and readily available commercially.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,339
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,645

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringMême sujetConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityTravaux en français237 207