Applicability of the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test for Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as a replacement for natural aggregate in new concrete is a promising way to increase the overall sustainability of new concrete. This has been hindered, however, by a general perception that RCA is a sub-standard material because of the lack of technical guidance, specifically related to long-term durability, on incorporating RCA into new concrete. The goal of this research was to determine whether current testing methods (namely, ASTM C1260) for assessing natural aggregate susceptibility to alkali-silica reactivity could be used to assess the potential reactivity of concrete incorporating RCA. Seven different RCA sources were investigated. It was determined that ASTM C1260 was effective in detecting reactivity, but expansion varied based on RCA processing. Depending on the aggregate type and the extent of processing, up to a 100 % increase in expansion was observed. Replicate testing was performed at four university laboratories to evaluate the repeatability and consistency of results. The authors recommend modifications to the mixing and aggregate preparation procedures when testing the reactivity of RCA using ASTM C1260.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it