Corrosion of concrete reinforcement and electrochemical factors in concrete patch repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion of concrete reinforcement at a patch repair is a complex problem, and current knowledge of its mechanism is quite limited. This review examined the correlation between two corrosion mechanisms, macrocell and microcell corrosion, from fundamental electrochemical principles. It was found that both mechanisms could play significant roles in inducing corrosion damage, contrary to the prevailing opinion that macrocell corrosion is the main deterioration mechanism in patch repair. This has practical implications that need to be considered for an effective and durable repair. A review of the studies done to date also enabled the identification of the key factors in patch repair controlling the corrosion characteristics. Corrosion could occur at different locations in the vicinity of the patch — substrate, interface, or patch area — depending on the respective electrochemical environments induced by the repair material properties and treatments, as well as the in-service exposure and mechanical loading. The review indicates that much of the needed research should focus on identification of corrosion mechanisms to effect successful patch repair in reinforced concrete structures.Key words: patch repair, substrate, corrosion, macrocell corrosion, microcell corrosion.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".