Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbonation curing of concrete products has shown potentials for CO2 capture and storage with environmental, technical and economical benefits in global greenhouse gas mitigation exercise. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the effect of early age carbonation on mechanical performance and pH of concrete in an attempt to understand the process and promote large scale applications. It was found that significant early strength was developed in cement and concrete through early age carbonation curing. The early strength could be maintained and improved due to subsequent hydration. Twenty-eight-day strength of carbonated cement and concrete was comparable to that of hydrated reference if subsequently cured in the air in a sealed bag, but was lower if subsequently cured in water. Treatment with either internal curing using lightweight aggregates or chemical admixture can effectively enhance late strength development in carbonated concrete. For three typical cement-based products including cement paste compacts, concrete compacts and precast concrete, two-hour carbonation reduced pH value from 12.8 to 11.8 as the lowest and subsequent 28-day hydration could slightly increase pH by 2% as maximum. At any time pH of early age carbonated concrete was always higher than 11.5, a threshold value under which the corrosion of reinforcing steel is likely to occur in concrete. The high pH in early-age carbonated concrete was likely attributed to the fact that early age carbonation was an accelerated hydration process, which was totally different from weathering carbonation in which pH of concrete could be neutralized due to the decomposition of calcium hydroxide and calcium silicate hydrates gel. Therefore, early age carbonation technology is applicable not only to concrete products such as masonry units and paving stones, but possibly to precast concrete with steel reinforcement as well.
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".