Do crystalline water proofing admixtures affect restrained plastic shrinkage behavior of concrete?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do crystalline water proofing admixtures affect restrained plastic shrinkage behavior of concrete?ABSTRACTThis paper describes the effect of crystalline water proofing admixtures on early-age cracking in concrete. The performance of three different types of these admixtures was compared to that of control. This study has been performed in two stages. Stage one was performed under ASTM specified conditions and a modified stage where more severe drying conditions than that described in the ASTM test standard were used. These modified conditions simulated inadequate curing under extreme exposure conditions as experienced by concrete in many parts of the world. The test results indicate that the water proofing admixtures can effectively reduce the early-age shrinkage cracking. The possible reasons for this secondary advantage of crystalline water proofing admixture is also hypothesized in this paper.Keywords: restrained plastic shrinkage cracking; crystalline water proofing admixtures; crack reduction ratio; time to first crack.¿Los aditivos de impermeabilización cristalina afectan al comportamiento de retracción plástica restringida del concreto?RESUMENEste artículo describe el efecto de las mezclas cristalinas de impermeabilización sobre el agrietamiento en concreto a temprana edad. El rendimiento de tres tipos diferentes de estos aditivos se comparó con el de control. Este estudio se ha realizado en dos etapas: la primera se realizó bajo condiciones especificadas por ASTM y la segunda fue una modificación de la primera, en la que se usaron condiciones de secado más severas que las descritas en la norma de ensayo ASTM. Estas condiciones modificadas simulaban un curado inadecuado en condiciones extremas de exposición como las experimentadas por el concreto en muchas partes del mundo. Los resultados de la prueba indican que los aditivos de impermeabilización cristalina pueden reducir eficazmente el agrietamiento por retracción a edad temprana. Las posibles razones de esta ventaja secundaria son también supuestas en este trabajo.Palabras clave: agrietamiento por retracción plástica restringida; mezclas cristalinas de impermeabilización; relación de reducción de grietas; tiempo para la primera grieta.Faça aditivos impermeabilizantes cristalinas afetar o comportamento de retração plástica concreta restrito?RESUMOEste artigo descreve o efeito da mistura cristalina impermeabilização na fissuração do concreto em uma idade precoce. O desempenho de três tipos diferentes destes aditivos foi comparado com o controlo. Este estudo foi conduzido em duas fases: a primeira foi realizada em condições especificadas pela norma ASTM e o segundo foi uma modificação do primeiro, no qual foram usadas condições mais severas do que as descritas para o ensaio ASTM seca. Estas condições modificadas simulando cura inadequada em condições de exposição extrema vivida por concreto em muitas partes do mundo. Os resultados dos testes indicam que o aditivo impermeabilizante cristalino pode efetivamente reduzir o encolhimento rachaduras cedo. As possíveis razões para esta vantagem secundário também é assumida neste trabalho.Palavras-chave: retração plásticas rachaduras restritas; impermeabilização de misturas cristalinas; taxa de redução rachaduras; tempo para a primeira rachadura.
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".