Corrosion behavior of austenitic 304L and 316LN stainless steel clad reinforcing bars in cracked concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study has been conducted on the chloride‐induced corrosion behavior of 304L and 316LN stainless steel clad reinforcing bars (rebar) in concrete and in synthetic concrete pore solution. Metallographic examination of the as‐received clad bars confirmed a strong metallurgical bond at the core/clad interface and some grain growth interdiffusion of species at the interface. Both bars showed a wide variation in coating thickness around the rebar circumference, from a minimum of 0.32 and 0.60 mm to a maximum of 1.4 and 2.8 mm in the 304L clad and 316LN clad, respectively. The electrochemical results and visual examination after autopsy showed that active corrosion was yet initiated on either the solid and clad stainless steel or carbon steel rebar in the sound noncracked concrete specimens. In contrast, corrosion had initiated in the bars embedded in cracked concrete at the base of the crack and extended along or around the bars. In the concrete and synthetic pore solution tests, the current densities of both solid and clad stainless steel rebar exposed to ∼21% chloride brine solution for days between 400 and 1,500 were similar. This was also the case for current densities of the straight and bent stainless steel bars tested in the synthetic pore solution test.
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".