Testing Abrasion Resistance of High-Strength Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several high-strength concrete types with compressive strength up to 120 MPa were tested to evaluate the suitabilities of two test standards to evaluate abrasion resistance of concrete subjected to wearing caused by heavy tire and steel wheel traffic and heavy trucking and water-borne debris. The selected tests were ASTM C 779, Procedure C, Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Horizontal Concrete Surfaces, and ASTM C 1138, Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete (Underwater Method). Because of the low rate of abrasion damage of high-strength concrete, the need to prolong the test duration of the mechanical abrasion test from 20 to 40 min and that of the underwater test from 72 to 96 and 120 h to better differentiate between various levels of abrasion was evaluated. The study also evaluated the differences in wear damage resulting from testing the finished, molded, or saw-cut surfaces of high-strength concrete. Both ASTM procedures are found to be suitable for testing the abrasion resistance of high-strength concrete. The recommended test duration of 20 min and 72 h for the ASTM C 779 and C 1138 tests, respectively, are sufficient to differentiate between the levels of wear damage of high-strength concrete. Good correlations exist between the wear damage measured at 72 h and those determined at 48, 96, and 120 h for the underwater test and 10 and 20 min results for the mechanical abrasion test. The evaluation of the abrasion resistance of saw-cut surfaces can yield considerably lower abrasion damage and smaller variations in within-test results than testing finished or molded surfaces.
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 | 0.000 | 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".