Test Method for Appraising Future Durability of New Concrete Bridge Decks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it