A study on the effect of curing temperature and duration on rebar corrosion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this investigation was to study the corrosion activity in reinforced concrete exposed to different curing temperatures and durations using a wet–dry cycle corrosion test. Reinforced concrete samples were also tested under an impressed current accelerated corrosion test for comparison. In total, ten curing techniques were conducted by varying curing temperature (hot, normal and cold) and curing duration (1, 3, 7 and 28 d). These curing techniques were evaluated based on the results of wet–dry cycle, accelerated corrosion, rapid chloride permeability and chloride diffusion tests. The chloride threshold, pH value, current measurement, half-cell, mass loss and crack width readings were assessed during wet–dry cycle and impressed current corrosion tests. Heat-cured samples showed the highest chloride diffusion/permeability, shortest corrosion periods, and had the lowest chloride threshold and pH values. This was followed by cold-cured samples (28 d at 3–5°C) and then air-cured samples (28 d at 23°C). Curing samples in water for 28 d at 23°C proved to be the best curing technique. Results also showed that the impressed current accelerated corrosion test can be used effectively to evaluate and compare corrosion activities in different qualities of concrete, but cannot be used after initiation of the first crack.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".