Inventive Microstructural and Durability Investigation of Cementitious Composites Involving Crystalline Waterproofing Admixtures and Portland Limestone Cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The durability of a cement-based material is mainly dependent on its permeability. Modifications of porosity, pore-structure and pore-connectivity could have significant impacts on permeability improvement, which eventually leads to more durable materials. One of the most efficient solutions in this regard is to use permeability reducing admixtures (PRA). Among these admixtures for those structures exposed to hydro-static pressure, crystalline waterproofing admixtures (CWA) have been serving in the construction industries for decades and according to ACI 212-chemical admixtures' report, it has proven its capability in permeability reduction and durability-enhancement. However, there is substantial research being done on its durability properties at the macro level but very limited information available regarding its microstructural features and chemical characteristics at the micro level. Hence, this paper presents one of the first reported attempts to characterize microstructural and chemical elements of hydration products for cementitious composites with CWA called K, P and X using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Backscattered SEM images taken from a polished-section of one CWA type-K-admixture were analyzed in ImageJ to obtain paste matrix porosity, indicating a lower value for the CWA-K mixture. X-ray analysis and SEM micrographs of polished sections were examined to identify chemical compositions based on atomic ratio plots and brightness differences in backscatter-SEM images. To detect chemical elements and the nature of formed crystals, the fractured surfaces of three different CWA mixtures were examined. Cementitious composites with K admixture indicated needle-like crystal formation-though different from ettringite; X and P admixtures showed sulfur peaks in Energy Dispersive Spectrum (EDS) spectra, like ettringite. SEM images and X-ray analyses of mixtures incorporating Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) indicated lower-than-average porosity but showed different Si/Ca and Al/Ca atomic ratios.
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 | 0.001 | 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".