Evaluation of the expansion attained to date by concrete affected by alkali–silica reaction. Part I: Experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expansion to date of the concrete from a structure affected by alkali–silica reaction (ASR) is a crucial parameter in the evaluation of the structural integrity of the structure. Three methods have been used to evaluate this expansion: (i) the "stiffness damage test" (SDT), (ii) the "damage rating index" (DRI), and (iii) surface cracking. Concrete cylinders were made using several types of coarse and fine reactive aggregates and subjected to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) concrete prism test CSA A23.2-14A (or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method C1293), i.e., at 38 °C and >95% relative humidity (RH). At various expansion levels, the specimens were subjected to SDT and DRI tests. Very good relationships were obtained between the expansion due to ASR and the SDT. The correlation between the ASR expansion and the DRI was not as good but still of interest. Width measurements of surface cracks were also performed on a number of blocks made with different reactive aggregates and exposed in the laboratory at 38 °C and >95% RH. The expansion estimated from these measurements was much lower than that measured on the blocks.Key words: aggregates, alkali–silica reaction, concrete expansion, damage rating index, petrography, stiffness damage test, surface cracking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".