Monitoring corrosion rate for ordinary portland concrete (OPC) and high-performance concrete (HPC) specimens subjected to chloride attack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results and the applicability of an electrochemical technique, the Tafel plot method, for determining the corrosion rate of reinforcing steel embedded in laboratory ordinary portland concrete (OPC) and high-performance concrete (HPC) specimens. Fifty-two OPC and 52 HPC concrete cylinders, each with a single embedded reinforcing steel rod, have been subjected to various laboratory conditions, and the corrosion rate of each specimen has been monitored. Results indicate that HPC specimens performed much better than OPC specimens in terms of resisting corrosion, as the corrosion rates were far lower for the HPC specimens than for the OPC specimens. Sodium chloride concentration played an important role in the propagation of corrosion: the higher the NaCl concentration, the higher the corrosion rate. In addition, different cycles of wetting and drying of concrete specimens had different impacts on corrosion rates. Results for the chloride concentration based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) destructive testing method C1218 were in agreement with the corrosion rate results from the Tafel plot method used in the study.Key words: corrosion, electrochemical, reinforced concrete, Tafel method, high-performance concrete.
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) | 0.000 | 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".