Carbonation Curing of Slag-Cement Concrete for Binding CO2 and Improving Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early age carbonation curing of slag-cement concrete was investigated to assess the feasibility of binding CO2 in slag-cement building products while improving their short-term and long-term performances. Four binder types were compared: an ordinary portland cement; an 85/15 slag cement; a 75/25 slag blend; and a 50/50 slag blend. A 2-h carbonation-curing treatment allowed concretes to bind 8–10% CO2 by mass of binder and attain as much as 82% of the 24-h hydration strength. The subsequent strength development of carbonated concrete was slower in the first 24 h possibly due to the carbonate buildup, but it was comparable to the conventionally hydrated concrete after 28 days. The carbonated concrete was shown to have a fracture toughness comparable to that of the hydrated concrete. The freeze/thaw durability of the concrete in deicing salt solution was vastly improved by the carbonation treatment. The pH of the carbonated concrete was reduced but was still above the threshold level required for the passivation of iron. The use of slag in carbonation curing is beneficial to strength gain, shrinkage reduction, and deicing salt resistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".