Experimental and Empirical Time to Corrosion of Reinforced Concrete Structures under Different Curing Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced concrete structures, especially those in marine environments, are commonly subjected to high concentrations of chlorides, which eventually leads to corrosion of the embedded reinforcing steel. The total time to corrosion of such structures may be divided into three stages: corrosion initiation, cracking, and damage periods. This paper evaluates, both empirically and experimentally, the expected time to corrosion of reinforced concrete structures. The tested reinforced concrete samples were subjected to ten alternative curing techniques, including hot, cold, and normal temperatures, prior to testing. The corrosion initiation, cracking, and damage periods in this investigation were experimentally monitored by an accelerated corrosion test performed on reinforced concrete samples. Alternatively, the corrosion initiation time for counterpart samples was empirically predicted using Fick’s second law of diffusion for comparison. The results showed that the corrosion initiation periods obtained experimentally were comparable to those obtained empirically. The corrosion initiation was found to occur at the first jump of the current measurement in the accelerated corrosion test which matched the half-cell potential reading of around −350 mV.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".