Evaluation of the Proposed European Test Procedure for Ranking Stainless Steel Rebar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modified version of EN 480-14 potentiostatic test procedure has been proposed as a rapid “pass/fail” screening test for the range of stainless steel reinforcing alloys currently available. The purpose of the present work was to determine if the proposed experimental details of the test are the most appropriate and result in the same ranking of the alloys as obtained in longer-term, conventional tests. To that end, some of the details of the experimental procedure were modified to allow a more direct comparison with the authors’ results of long-term testing of the same range of stainless steel grades. To this end, the admixed chloride content and applied potential were varied and the bars were embedded in the same concrete mixture (based on an ordinary Portland cement [OPC]/slag blend with 0.40 water/cementitious materials [w/cm] ratio) as in the long-term tests, rather than in OPC mortar with a 0.50 w/cm ratio. For comparison, tests were also conducted on bars cast into a plain OPC concrete with the same aggregates and w/cm ratio. The results illustrate the importance of concrete mixture design, with the steels exhibiting better performance in the OPC concrete than in the OPC/slag concrete under the same conditions. Furthermore, it is concluded that the use of the same constant applied potential for all grades of stainless steel may not be the most appropriate because of the wide range of half-cell potentials exhibited by the different rebar grades. Instead, it is recommended that the same anodic polarization (i.e., the same difference between the half-cell potential and the applied potential) be considered.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".