Evaluating Sulphate Resistance of Cement-Based Systems by Sulphate Content Determination after Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes approaches to evaluating the resistance of cement-based composites to sulphate attack. The conventional approach of evaluation by means of measuring expansion is discussed in comparison with the sulphate diffusion, which was quantified as a function of depth. Besides CSA Types GU and HS, a 30:70 blend of fly ash and cement Type GU was also examined. The specimens so produced were immersed in a sulphate solution as per ASTM C1012 and retrieved variously after 7, 14, 28, 56 and 84 days of exposure. As expected, Type HS cement performed best with minimum expansion and sulphate ingress. On the other hand, the Type GU cement showed lower expansion and sulphate ingress in comparison to the fly ash blended binder. Although bearing identical porosity, the blended binder had the smallest median pore size. Therefore, the sulphate ingress and consequent ettringite production likely cracks the blended system more than the other two. Significantly, after longer durations of sulphate exposure, the blended system showed higher tensile strength which implies a healing of cracks through ettringite formation.
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".