A Coupled Nanoindentation/SEM‐EDS Study on Low Water/Cement Ratio Portland Cement Paste: Evidence for C–S–H/Ca(OH) <sub>2</sub> Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A low water/cement ratio ( w/c =0.20) hydrated Portland cement paste was analyzed by grid‐indentation coupled with ex situ scanning electron microscope‐energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectra (SEM‐EDS) analysis at each indentation point. Because finite element and Monte‐Carlo simulations showed that the microvolumes probed by each method are of comparable size (approximately 2 μm), the mechanical information provided by nanoindentation was directly comparable to the chemical information provided by SEM‐EDS. This coupled approach provided the opportunity to determine whether the local indentation response was a result of a single‐ or a multiphase response—the latter being shown predominant in the highly concentrated w/c =0.20 hydrated cement paste. Results indicate that, in the selected microvolumes where C–S–H and nanoscale Ca(OH) 2 (CH) are present, increasing fractions of CH increase the local indentation modulus (and hardness), yielding values above those reported for high‐density (HD) C–S–H. Micromechanical analyses show that C–S–H and CH are associated, not merely as a simple biphase mixture, but as an intimate nanocomposite where nanoscale CH reinforces C–S–H by partially filling the latter's gel pores. The paper discusses the mechanism of forming the C–S–H/CH nanocomposite, as well as the impact of nanocomposites on various macroscopic properties of concrete (e.g., shrinkage, expansion). On a general level, this study illustrates how a coupled nanoindentation/X‐ray microanalysis/micromechanics approach can provide otherwise inaccessible information on the nanomechanical properties of highly heterogeneous composites with intermixing at length scales smaller than the stress field in a nanoindentation experiment.
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".