Long-term alkali–silica mitigation of high-alkali concrete with cement replacements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the impact of high-alkali Portland cements on the prescribed level of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) required in the Canadian standard for alkali–silica reaction mitigation was evaluated. On the basis of the results, for concretes containing aggregates exhibiting moderate reactivity, the maximum allowable cement alkali limit was increased from 1.00 to 1.15%. For all the levels of aggregate reactivity, cement alkali contents could be allowed up to 1.25% provided the recommended level of mitigation by SCMs was increased. In the initial laboratory study, mortar bars and concrete prisms were cast and monitored using two different reactive aggregates and recommended levels of fly ash and slag. For the concrete prism tests, the alkali contents of cements were increased to 1.25%, as per the standard, or were increased by 0.25%. Instrumented outdoor exposure concrete blocks, along with additional concrete prisms stored at different temperatures, were cast from numerous mixtures prepared with cement alkali equivalents ranging up to 1.22%. This paper reports on the long-term performance of prisms and concrete blocks after 12 and 27 years. The performance of the outdoor blocks is also compared with the predicted performance based on the results of accelerated mortar bar and concrete prism 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".