Is ASTM C 672 Curing Procedure Still Appropriate to Test the Scaling Resistance of Blended Cements?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The scaling resistance of slag-blended cements can be critical when tested according to the procedure described in the present ASTM C 672 standard. As soon as slag replacement is greater than 20 percent, the scaling resistance of concretes made with a slag-blended cement deteriorates rapidly. But when the initial water curing procedure is lengthened from 13 to 27 days, the slag-blended samples have enough time to become more fully mature and they easily pass the scaling test, even when the substitution rate is as high as 80 percent. Lengthening of the present initial water-curing period from 13–27 days should be considered in the case of slag-blended cements, and most probably for other blended cements as well. This would allow for concretes made with a blended cement to reach the same degree of maturity as concretes made with pure Portland cement when they are submitted for the first time to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing salts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".