Deicing salt scaling resistance of concrete incorporating fly ash and (or) silica fume: laboratory and field sidewalk test data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sidewalk sections were cast in fall 2002 with three concrete mixtures that consisted of a control concrete, a concrete mixture incorporating 25% fly ash, and a concrete mixture made with a ternary blended cement (fly ash and silica fume). The curing practices consisted of using curing compound and wet burlap. For each of the sidewalk sections, laboratory specimens were cast on site using the concrete from the same batch. Large slabs (1.2 m × 0.9 m) were also cast from which specimens could be cored and tested in the laboratory for compressive strength and deicing salt scaling resistance following the ASTM and the BNQ test procedures. The results were compared to the performance of the sidewalk sections after six winters of outdoor exposure. A similar study was completed on sidewalk sections cast in spring 2002; the objective of the present study being to confirm the results of the previous investigation, and to determine the effect of the time of casting on the scaling resistance of the concrete i.e., performance of sidewalks cast in spring versus that of sidewalks cast in fall. The field evaluation showed that all the concretes cast in fall scaled relatively more than those placed in spring. Both laboratory results and field evaluations have shown that the use of a curing compound increases the scaling resistance of all the concretes investigated. The results also confirmed the adequateness of the BNQ procedure to better evaluate the deicing salt scaling resistance of concrete made with supplementary cementing materials; however, monitoring the sidewalk sections for a longer period of time is still required to confirm the above observations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".