MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Paraffin Wax as a Sealant in Sorptivity Testing

2012· article· en· W2007619266 on OpenAlexaff
M.A. Nunes, Charles Martin Ormsby, Vimal N. Patel, Ting Peng, Andrew J. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorptivityMaterials scienceAir entrainmentComposite materialDurabilityWaxThermoplasticForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The durability and sustainability of concrete structures is a prime socioeconomic concern of contemporary society. The lifecycle of these structures is typically determined by the rate of moisture ingress, in which dissolved and unwanted substances are transported into the structure. Therefore finding a sufficient means to measure these rates is of utmost importance. A sorptivity testing scheme as outlined by a commonly used standard can be a useful means of measuring how quickly liquid can be transported unidirectionally through concrete samples in the laboratory. Currently the standard prescribes that disc specimens 100 mm in diameter and 50-mm thick be sealed in such a manner to ensure unidirectional flow through one, unsealed face of the sample, while all other surfaces are appropriately sealed. However the standard does not specify how this seal is to be achieved. Furthermore, differing methods have yielded a likewise array of varied results, which may not be representative of the true sorptivity. The objective of this paper is to propose a simple but effective means of sealing the specimens that will yield more consistent results, which are more representative of the actual absorption properties of the concrete. This was accomplished by studying the performance of electrical insulation tape and cellophane (as suggested in the standard) against paraffin wax using three different mixture designs, as follows: (1) involving normal strength concrete without air entrainment, (2) a normal strength concrete mixture with air entrapment, and (3) self-consolidating concrete without air entrapment. The prepared specimens were subjected to various freeze-thaw cycling periods, conditioned, and then tested for sorptivity. Batches of samples were exposed to freeze-thaw cycling periods of 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, and 300 cycles. Within each group of samples, half of the specimens were sealed with electrical tape and cellophane, and the other half were sealed with paraffin wax in order to conduct sorptivity testing. Specimens coated in wax typically exhibited lower absorption values than those wrapped in tape. Furthermore, the tape would not adhere perfectly with the concrete at the edge formed by the cylindrical wall and the exposed surface, resulting in increased sorptivity values. Statistical analysis was done on the rates of early-age (0–6 h) and late-age (1–8 days) sorptivity by using the F-test to examine variability (with an 80% confidence interval) and the student-t test was used to evaluate the significance of differences in sample means. Generally, sorptivity rates were higher for taped samples than those for waxed samples. These results further reinforced visual observations. The waxed samples yielded more reliable results primarily because they did not absorb moisture artificially along the sides in the manner as observed in the taped specimens. Moreover, the paraffin wax sealant method also resulted in less variability within test results. Therefore it was believed that the wax facilitated more representative results of the true sorptivity. It was suggested that the procedures of the common standard discussed in this paper should be refined such that the sealing of test specimens should be done with the use of paraffin wax, or some other similar substance, such as silicone, which is impermeable and readily available commercially.

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)0.002
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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207