Self-compacting concrete: using limestone to resist sulfuric acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is increasingly being used in precast concrete sewer pipes, water treatment facilities, industrial floors and foundations that are susceptible to biogenic and/or chemical sulfuric acid attack. Since the mixture design of SCC is different to that of normal concrete, the durability of SCC in such applications needs to be evaluated. In particular, SCC can incorporate proportions of limestone filler and different combinations of aggregates, which is believed to alter its resistance to sulfuric acid. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the resistance to sulfuric acid of various SCC mixtures incorporating different limestone material types, proportions and combinations. The study comprised 12 weeks of immersion of test specimens in 1, 3 and 5% sulfuric acid solutions with a maximum pH threshold of 3, 2 and 1, respectively. The study revealed that the resistance to sulfuric acid of SCC incorporating limestone materials was dependent on the degree of solution aggression. While limestone filler contributed to increasing the resistance of SCC to the moderately aggressive solution (3% sulfuric acid), it accelerated the rate of mass loss in the highly aggressive solution (5% sulfuric acid). The effect of fineness and particle size of limestone and the kinetics of corrosion reaction on the resistance of SCC to sulfuric acid was also highlighted in this study. Microanalysis conducted upon test termination elucidated the damage mechanisms, and it was shown that the change in compressive strength after exposure to sulfuric acid solutions was not a proper indicator for the surface deterioration of SCC in acidic media.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".