Comparison of lithomarge and cement-based mortars performance in aggressive aqueous environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resistance of room temperature cured geopolymer mortar (GPM) against chemical attacks, i.e. sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions, and sulfuric and hydrochloric acid solutions, was evaluated. GPM was formulated using a lithomarge precursor (low-purity kaolin) to achieve 28-day characteristic compressive strength of 60 MPa. Its performance was compared with an equivalent Portland cement mortar (PCM) having the same paste volume and strength grade. 28-day old bar samples were stored in 0.352 mol/L sulfate solutions for 52 weeks whereas 28-day old cube samples were exposed for 8 weeks to acid solutions with concentration of 0.52 mol/L. GPM showed superior performance against sulfate attack when compared to PCM. No visual deterioration was observed in GPM, the length changes were relatively small, and no changes to the microstructure were detected – in contrast to severely deteriorated PCM. As confirmed by visual observations and lower mass loss, GPM showed better resistance to attack by both acids than PCM. GPM provided a better quality (lower permeability) of an acid-degraded layer, lowering the degree of further deterioration. The main mechanisms of the matrix deterioration of GPM in both acids was dealumination of the hardened binder, with a higher degree of changes detected for sulfuric acid.
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".