MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202747385 · doi:10.1520/acem20200076

Evaluation of Current ASTM Standards for ASR Prevention When Fine Lightweight Aggregates Are Used

2021· article· en· W3202747385 on OpenAlex
Li Chang, Jason H. Ideker, M D Thomas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Civil Engineering Materials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortarAlkali–silica reactionAggregate (composite)Materials scienceTest methodAlkali–aggregate reactionComposite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous research has shown that using fine lightweight aggregate (FLWA) can be a promising strategy to mitigate alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in mortar and concrete. However, limited studies focused on assessing current ASTM standards for their applicability in evaluating the efficacy of ASR mitigation using FLWAs. In this study, three commercially used FLWAs (expanded shale, clay, and slate) were investigated in mortar and concrete mixtures with reactive aggregates of different levels of reactivity. ASTM test methods, including ASTM C289-07, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical Method) (Withdrawn 2016); ASTM C1260-14, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method) (Superseded); and ASTM C1293-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete due to Alkali-Silica Reaction (Superseded), were completed. Fine normal-weight aggregates were replaced by the FLWA at 25 % and 50 % by volume in the concrete mixtures, and 25 %, 50 %, and 100 % in mortar mixtures. Results showed that ASTM C1260-14 and ASTM C1293-18 can be used to evaluate the mitigation efficacy when pre-wetted FLWAs were used. The ASTM C289-07 test is not a reliable test method to study the reactivity of the FLWAs, but the results can be used to indicate the alkali-consuming ability of the FLWAs. All three FLWAs were effective in reducing ASR-induced expansion in both ASTM C1260-14 and ASTM C1293-18. The investigated FLWAs were especially effective in the concrete when moderately reactive aggregates, as classified by ASTM C1778-14, Standard Guide for Reducing the Risk of Deleterious Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete (Superseded), were used. For concrete with a highly reactive aggregate or very highly reactive aggregate, other mitigation strategies may need to be combined with FLWAs to effectively mitigate ASR.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.298 · 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