Performance of concrete with blended binders in ammonium-sulphate solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete elements in agricultural, wastewater treatment, mining, and industrial applications can be vulnerable to chemical attack by ammonium-based solutions. In particular, ammonium sulfate (commonly used as a fertilizer) is extremely deleterious to concrete. This is due to its dual acid–sulfate action, which may disintegrate the hydrated cement paste to various levels based on the prevailing exposure conditions and key mixture design parameters of concrete. The aim of this study was to investigate the response, in terms of physico-mechanical and microstructural features, of concrete comprising different types of cement (general use [GU] or Portland limestone cement [PLC]) with various combinations of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs: fly ash, silica fume, and nanosilica) to a severe ammonium sulfate exposure. The study comprised 12 months of immersing test specimens in 5% ammonium sulfate solutions with a pH level of 6.0–8.0. The results revealed that the type of binder along with the dosage and nature of SCMs dictated different modes and levels of deterioration, and consequently the physico-mechanical trends of concrete were characterized by softening with (single binders) or without (blended binders) significant expansion. PLC may slightly improve the resistance of concrete to ammonium sulfate attack, whereas among the blended binders tested, binary binders comprising 5% silica fume, 5% nanosilica, or 30% fly ash improved the resistance of concrete to this type of chemical attack.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".