Performance of rice husk ash blended cement concretes subjected to sulfate environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work assessed the performance of rice husk ash (RHA)-based ASTM type I and type V (low tricalcium aluminate (C3A)) blended cement concrete mixtures subjected to a mixed magnesium–sodium sulfate environment for an immersion period up to 48 months. The concrete mixtures comprised a combination of two Portland cements (type I and type V) and two RHA-blended cements with two water-to-binder ratios of 0·35 and 0·45. In addition to fresh and strength properties, X-ray diffraction, differential scanning calorimetry, mercury intrusion porosimetry and rapid chloride permeability tests were conducted on all concrete mixtures to determine phase composition, pozzolanic activity, porosity and chloride ion resistance. Deterioration of concrete due to mixed sulfate attack and corrosion of reinforcing steel were evaluated by assessing concrete weight loss and measuring corrosion potentials and polarisation resistance at periodic intervals throughout the immersion period of 48 months. Plain (type I/V) cement concretes performed better in terms of deterioration and corrosion resistance than RHA-based type I/V blended cement concrete mixtures in a mixed sulfate environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".