Expansion Behavior of Two Kinds of Typical Alkali Reactive Rocks Specimen in Alkaline Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expansion behaviors of Spratt siliceous(SL)limestone and Pittsburg argillaceous dolomite-bearing(PL) limestone from Canada in Accelerated Mortar Bar(Test(AMBT)),Concrete Prism Test(CPT) and Concrete Microbar Test were studied. There are significant differences between the two rocks in the expansion behavior in different tests and in responses to the addition of sufficient amount of fly ash and LiOH,which are effective measures in controlling ASR expansion.SL limestone shows high expansion in both the AMBT and the CPT.By 30% replacement of cement with fly ash and LiOH the expansion of concrete microbar with SL limestone is reduced significantly.SL limestone is a high alkali-silica reactive limestone although the small amount of dolomite it contains might involve in reaction with alkali.PL limestone shows high and rapid expansion in the CPT,but little expansion in the AMBT.Fly ash and LiOH have no significant effect on controlling expansion of concrete microbar with PL limestone.ACR(alkali-carbonate reaction),which is very different from ASR(alkali-silica reaction),is the determining factor leading to the high expansion of PL limestone although the small amount of quartz it contains might involve in reaction with alkali and possibly contributes to the final expansion.It is critically important to use coarse particles that can maintain its original texture characteristics for proper evaluation of the alkali reactivity of PL limestone.The ASR and ACR in dolomite-bearing limestones could be classified in laboratory by using the different responses of ASR and ACR to fly ash and lithium chemicals,especially the duplex effect of LiOH on ASR and ACR.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".