Accelerated test methods for evaluating alkali-silica reactivity of recycled concrete aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis reports the findings of a study carried out to determine the effectiveness of Accelerated Tests in evaluating the Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates. The study evaluated the variability of the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test due to test variables as well as the single and multi-laboratory variation. The variability of the Concrete Microbar Test due to test variables and the correlation to results from Accelerated Mortar Bar and Concrete Prism Test results were also evaluated. The tests were corroborated by comparing the porosity, permeability and alkali binding capacity of samples tested by the accelerated tests. It was found that the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test provides acceptable results when the test variables, such as crushing methods and absorption values, are carried out and evaluated properly. The Concrete Microbar Test was found to underestimate the expansion of reactive aggregates. However, the same test was found to provide good correlation to the expansion results of Concrete Prisms incorporating Supplementary Cementing Materials when the test duration was increased.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".