Evaluation of the expansion attained to date by concrete affected by alkalisilica reaction. Part II: Application to nonreinforced concrete specimens exposed outside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In part I, relationships were obtained in the laboratory between the expansion due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and (i) the "stiffness damage test" (SDT), (ii) the "damage rating index" (DRI), and (iii) the surface cracking of the concrete. These tests were conducted on nonreinforced concrete blocks and cylinders made with various reactive aggregates and stored at 38 °C and >95% relative humidity. The objective of part II was to verify the validity of the relationships from part I for concrete elements made in the laboratory but exposed outside. On average for the 51 blocks and 14 slabs tested, the surface cracking increased with ASR expansion and approached the measured expansion in the case of the most severely exposed sections of the specimens tested. The ratio between the expansion estimated from the surface cracking and the measured expansion varied greatly from one specimen to another (between 0 and 4.3), however. Taking into account the type of reactive aggregate involved did not explain the situation. Despite a variety of reactive aggregates, a quite good relationship (coefficient of linear regression R 2 = 0.89) was obtained between the DRI and the ASR expansion for the six blocks cored and tested for DRI and SDT. This relationship is significantly different from those obtained in the laboratory, however. Moreover, the exposed concretes clearly differ from the laboratory concretes regarding the most important defects observed in the DRI test. As in the laboratory, the results obtained from the SDT seem to depend on the type of reactive aggregate involved. Nevertheless, this test globally supplied results with the best agreement with the measured expansion.Key words: aggregates, alkalisilica 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".