MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bond Loss between Metakaolin-Incorporated Structural Lightweight Self-Consolidating Concrete and Corroded Steel Reinforcement

2016· article· en· W2555972729 on OpenAlexaff
Emre Sancak, Khandaker M. Anwar Hossain, Mohamed Lachemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsRebarMaterials scienceReinforcementCorrosionMetakaolinComposite materialSelf-consolidating concreteBond strengthCementitiousSteel barChloridePenetration (warfare)Fly ashDurabilityBondMetallurgyCementCompressive strengthAdhesive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been inadequate investigation into the effect of steel reinforcement corrosion on the bond strength between steel rebar and structural self-consolidating lightweight concrete (SCLWC). This study investigates the physical and mechanical properties of developed SCLWC mixtures and their effectiveness in reinforcement corrosion prevention. Cylindrical pullout specimens made of SCLWC mixtures [incorporating 2–4% of metakolin (MK) and 10–12% of fly ash by weight of total cementitious materials] with a centrally embedded 20-mm-diameter reinforcing bar were used to study the effect of corrosive environment on bond behavior. A 5% NaCl solution was used as a corrosive environment and 0.05 A of direct current was applied for accelerated corrosion during the duration of testing. For noncorroded specimens, the highest bond strength was exhibited by specimen made of SCLWC with 0% MK. The specimens made of SCLWC with 4% MK showed highest bond strength (both normalized and unnormalized) when exposed to accelerated corrosion for a theoretical reinforcement mass loss of 2 and 5%. Besides, specimens with 4% MK showed highest resistance against chloride ion penetration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207