Role of test method in detection of alkali–silica reactivity of concrete aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of alkali–silica reaction of concrete aggregates in many parts of the world remains largely unexplored. In particular, a suitable approach for testing aggregates with marginal to moderate alkali–silica reactivity has not been clearly identified. In this study, the mineralogical compositions of aggregates from five different quarries were investigated. Mortar bar expansion for these aggregates was tested as per the guidelines of both C 227 and C 1260. Although the tested aggregate sources proved non-reactive under ASTM C 227 test conditions, ASTM C 260 identified one group of aggregates as potentially reactive. Scanning electron microscopy imaging confirmed that two sources of aggregates were reactive. The compressive and flexural strength test results of aged specimens with reactive aggregates indicated that the strength reduction of those subjected to 1 month of ASTM C 260 exposure was similar to those of specimens under 6 months of ASTM C 227 exposure. Based on the experimental results, it appears that aggregates with potential alkali–silica damage may be characterised as non-reactive if the appropriate test method is not adopted. The findings indicate that the ASTM C 1260 procedure is more effective in determining the reactivity potential of marginally to moderately reactive aggregates.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".