MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018953222 · doi:10.4186/ej.2020.24.1.1

Influence of Type and Compositions of SCMs on Expansion of Mortar Bars from Alkali Silica Reaction

2020· article· en· W3018953222 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chakkarphan Sangsuwan, Suvimol Sujjavanich

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKasetsart University Research and Development InstitutePartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerKasetsart University
KeywordsAlkali–silica reactionMortarAlkali metalAlkali–aggregate reactionMaterials scienceComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of different local pozzolans, as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM), on the expansion of mortar bar due to Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) were reported in this paper.Accelerated test on specimens using local volcanic aggregates, rhyolite, was used to investigate and to compare the effects of fly ash (FA) and metakaolin (MK) on the suppression of the length change.In this study, three different percentages of FA, namely, 20, 35 and 50 and three of MK, namely, 10, 15 and 20 were used as cement replacement.The results at 14 days showed slight decrease expansions for 20% FA replacement of 0.073% but the lowest expansions were 0.025% and -0.001%, respectively for 35% FA and 10% MK, compared to 0.176 % of the control mix.Increase the SCMs to 50% FA and 15-20% MK yielded reduction of expansion to the innocuous level.Results from 28 days acceleration registered a slight increase in expansion for FA mixes of 35 and 50% and all MK mixes, but still less than 0.10%, the threshold for innocuous level.Chemical composition analysis revealed decrease in CaO/SiO2 and CaO/Al2O3 ratio of the cementitious systems.This correlated with the expansion reduction.But alumina in Al2O3/SiO2 ratio showed the dominant effect on ASR suppression.Microstructures of all materials and casted specimens were also studied in detail.Considering all aspects, these SCMs, used in suitable amount were considered good candidates for ASR prevention in new concrete structures for both short and long term

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering JournalSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207