Proposed Universal Accelerated Test for Alkali-Aggregate Reaction The Concrete Microbar Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Concrete Microbar Test is modified after a Chinese test, for alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates. The protocol for the test is essentially the same as for ASTM C 1260, Standard Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of Cementitious Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar Bar Method), except for the size of the bars, the grading of the aggregate, the water to cement ratio and the length of the test. The concrete microbars are 40 by 40 by 160 mm. The aggregate is graded to pass a 12.5 mm sieve and be retained on a 4.75 mm sieve. The water to cement ratio is 0.33. The length of the test is 30 days in 1 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) at 80°C. The test results show that the method is applicable to both alkali-carbonate and alkali-silica reactive aggregates. Moderate correlation was found between the expansions measured in this test at 30 days, and in the concrete prism test (CSA A23.2-14A) at 1 year. Alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates may be distinguished from alkali-silica reactive aggregates in this test by replacing a portion of the portland cement by a supplementary cementing material. The expansions of alkali-silica reactive aggregates, in this test, are significantly reduced by the presence of the supplementary cementing material but expansion of alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates is largely unaffected. It is tentatively suggested that the expansion limit to separate deleteriously alkali silica reactive siliceous limestones from innocuous limestones is 0.140 % at 30 days; the proposed limit for all other aggregates is 0.04 %.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".