Influence of Specimen Geometry, Orientation of Casting Plane, and Mode of Concrete Consolidation on Expansion Due to ASR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Concrete specimens of different sizes and shapes were made with various reactive aggregates and stored under conditions favorable to the development of alkali-silica reactivity (ASR), with their expansion measured with time along the three directions. They have been cast vertically (cylinders and prisms) or horizontally (prisms and larger blocks), using a vibrating table, a vibrating needle, or rodding. The expansion due to ASR was always greater in the direction perpendicular to the casting plane. The higher the number of flat and elongated particles in the reactive aggregate, the higher the coefficient of anisotropy, defined as the ratio between the expansions perpendicular and parallel to the casting plane. This coefficient was constant through the course of the expansion. It was generally higher for the cylinders than for the prisms, and still less for larger blocks. Consolidation by rodding induced anisotropy coefficients distinctly smaller than consolidation using a vibrating table, while a vibrating needle induced intermediate values; however, all methods gave constant volumetric expansion at least up to an important expansion level. For prisms cast horizontally and measured axially in accordance with the concrete test CSA A23.2-14A or ASTM C 1293, consolidation using rodding induced long-term (axial) expansions greater by 71% compared with consolidation using a vibrating table. In order to reduce the experimental variability of the test, only one method of consolidation should be allowed. When evaluating field concrete affected by ASR, it appears important to consider the orientation with respect to the casting plane of the core samples subjected to mechanical or residual expansion tests.
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".