Sulphate resistance of silica fume blended mortars exposed to various sulphate solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different performances of silica fume blended mortars placed in various sulphate-bearing exposure conditions were investigated. Experimental study was carried out on mortars immersed in 5% sodium sulphate, 5% magnesium sulphate, and mixed 5% sodium sulphate and 5% magnesium sulphate solutions for 270 d of sulphate exposure. Another variable was the replacement ratio of cement with silica fume (0, 5, 10, and 15% of the cement by weight). The results showed conclusively that silica fume should be given serious consideration for use in sulphate environments. In other words, in a sodium sulphate solution, silica fume showed a beneficial effect on mitigating compressive strength reduction and length change of mortars. However, the strength deterioration factor of the mortar specimen with some silica fume content (especially 15% of the cement by weight) was greater than that of the mortar specimen without silica fume under Mg 2+ ion oriented attack. These different sulphate deterioration mechanisms are presented in the study. Microstructural investigations such as X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXA), and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) were also used to support the explanation for these mechanisms.Key words: sodium sulphate, magnesium sulphate, silica fume, strength deterioration factor, length change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".