Test Method for Appraising Future Durability of New Concrete Bridge Decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nondestructive test procedure for quantifying the future durability of bridge deck concrete is based on the fundamental relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and the permeability of an elastic medium. An experimental study using standard concrete cylindrical specimens (ASTM C192) documented adequate sensitivity between UPV and permeability. The test procedure uses a parameter directly proportional to increase in-field concrete permeability called paste quality loss (PQL). The PQL is computed from UPV measurements on standard concrete specimens made from field concrete mixture (ASTM C31) and measurements on field concrete. Deck replacement projects on three National Highway System bridges were used as demonstration sites to implement the test procedure. The 56-day PQLs were calculated as 15%, 28%, and 9%, demonstrating a significant variability in the permeability of the three bridge decks. Field permeability tests were also conducted with Figg’s apparatus for comparison purposes. The PQL evaluation from postconstruction measurements is an effective and reliable method for testing the future durability of bridge decks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".