MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983457392 · doi:10.1520/jai13403

Enhancing the Reliability of Evaluating Chloride Ingress in Concrete Using the ASTM C 1202 Rapid Chloride Penetrability Test

2006· article· en· W1983457392 on OpenAlexaff
MT Bassuoni, ML Nehdi, TR Greenough

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorideReliability (semiconductor)Materials scienceTest methodStructural engineeringComposite materialReliability engineeringForensic engineeringMetallurgyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rapid chloride penetrability test (RCPT-ASTM C 1202) is commonly used to evaluate the resistance of concrete to chloride ions ingress owing to its simplicity and rapidity. However, it has been criticized for various shortcomings such as giving favorable results to supplementary cementitious materials (e.g., silica fume), and bias against calcium nitrite corrosion inhibitors (CNI). Based on the ASTM C 1202 induced voltage concept, this study aims at enhancing the reliability of rapidly evaluating concrete resistance to chloride ions ingress. It is proposed that upon test termination, not only the passing charges are recorded, but the depth of chloride front migrating into concrete is also measured. Concrete mixtures herein were prepared incorporating selected materials (silica fume and CNI) that have been known to cause misleading results for the RCPT test. The effects of silica fume and CNI dosages on RCPT results were investigated and correlated to porosity trends evaluated by mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). The study reveals that measuring the migrating chloride front in concrete subsequent to the ASTM C 1202 test can eliminate the bias induced by electrolysis conductivity resulting from silica fume and/or CNI. This improves the reliability of assessing concrete resistance to chloride ions penetration using the RCPT procedure.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207