Using Modified Mortar-Bar Test Method to Access the Effects of Deicers on Expansion of Mortars With and Without Reactive Aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of deicing chemicals on alkali reactivity of aggregates is still an area of active research. The potential alkali reactivity of aggregates is often tested using the ASTM C1260 method. This research used the modified ASTM C1260 to test the potential alkali reactivity of aggregates. The modification included replacing the standard 1N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) used in ASTM C1260 with eutectic concentrations of the three common chloridebased deicing chemicals: sodium chloride (NaCl), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), and calcium chloride (CaCl2). The results showed that the mortar bars with reactive aggregate (Jobe sand) stored in NaCl solution developed higher expansion than those stored in MgCl2 and CaCl2 solutions. It seems NaCl can initiate (or accelerate) the alkali silica reaction (ASR), while MgCl2 and CaCl2 do not seem to contribute to ASR. In addition, after about 100–120 days of exposure, irrespective of whether they contained reactive (Jobe sand) or nonreactive (Ottawa sand) aggregates, the mortar bars submerged in the MgCl2 solution started to crack and disintegrate. This implies that the observed expansions should be attributed solely to the effect of these deicers on the cement paste itself rather than to their effects on aggregates. The proposed modified test method produced conclusive results within a relatively short testing time (~28 days).
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".