MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481862042

Thermal strengthening of limestone: monument preservation during fire

2010· article· en· W1481862042 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Heap, Yan Lavallée, Philip Benson, Kai‐Uwe Hess, Donald B. Dingwell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe EGU General Assembly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonateRock mass classificationGeologyDeformation (meteorology)Mining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialMetallurgy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of natural rocks in the construction of buildings and monuments predates the use of commercially engineered materials such as concrete. Such building material can be subject to elevated temperatures in the misfortunate event of a fire. In civil engineering, it is generally appreciated that the strength of rock is decreased when it is or has been exposed to elevated temperatures. This is due the formation of thermal microcracks, a result of the thermal expansion mismatch between different minerals in the rock. Even today, fire is by no means an uncommon occurrence and approximately one historic building is lost to fire in the European Union every day (COST C17 2001). A large number of historically significant buildings and monuments are constructed from carbonate material. However, could the paradigm of thermal weakening of limestone construction material be in part, a paradox? We report new findings on the thermal strengthening of the Solnhofen limestone (Solnhofen, Germany), a carbonate rock traditionally used in construction of building and statues in central Europe. Two types of deformation experiments were performed to investigate: (1) the strength of samples at elevated temperatures (i.e. during fire) and (2) the strength of samples at room temperature after heat-treatment (i.e. after fire). During experimentation, microcracking was monitored by the output of acoustic emissions (AE). Thermo-gravimetric (TG) analysis was also undertaken to measure the mass loss during heating. For the experiments ‘during fire’, samples were heated to temperatures of 25°, 200°, 400°, 500°, 600°, 650° and 800°C at a controlled rate of 5°C/min and deformed until failure in a uniaxial press at a constant strain rate of 10-5 s-1. For the experiments ‘after fire’, samples were heat-treated to each 100°C increment up to 800°C, they were then cooled at the same rate and their strength tested at room temperature. The mechanical data demonstrate that, during fire, the strength of the limestone increases up to 400°C, from 117MPa at 25°C to 215MPa at 400°C. Above 400°C the strength decreases significantly (down to 20MPa at 800°C) and the deformation behaviour becomes increasingly ductile and aseismic. After a fire event, the strength remains essentially constant up to samples heat-treated to 200°C. For samples heat-treated between 300°-700°C, the strength increased by about 60% from the ‘as received’ (i.e. no heating) sample. However, the sample heat-treated to 800°C saw a significant reduction in strength (down to 25MPa). All of the heat-treated samples deformed in a brittle manner and AE (seismicity) was recorded in each case. TG analysis demonstrates that decarbonation (the decomposition of calcite in the reaction CaCO3 ! CaO + CO2) at 760°C, explaining the significant weakening at temperatures above 700°C. The TG analysis also shows that, at 800°C, the sample has lost 35-40% of its mass. Over the course of history, a significant amount of monuments and buildings were crafted in limestone. Our findings suggest that it may be advisable, although feasibly expensive, to carefully heat-treat them to medium temperatures (300-500°C) in order to strengthen them and prolong their lifespan. Furthermore, in the event of a fire, it is of paramount importance to keep the temperature of a structure below the decarbonation temperature. Furthermore, heating-induced colour changes in limestone (cream-pink-grey-white), as observed in this study, could be used as a proxy for the temperatures previously experienced by a limestone monument or building.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe EGU General AssemblySame topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207