Suitability of electrochemical test methods for evaluating corrosion of steel in alkali-activated slag concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemical tests commonly used for evaluating reinforcement corrosion in Portland cement-based concrete may not be appropriate for testing alkali-activated slag (AAS) concrete due to its different pore structure and pore solution composition. In this article, corrosion behaviour of the steel bars in 12 AAS concrete mixes with different alkali concentration and modulus of sodium silicate solution was monitored by using gravimetric mass loss measurement. The results obtained from other electrochemical tests were compared to the gravimetric mass loss to determine their suitability for assessing the corrosion of steel in AAS concrete. It was found that only 7.8–28% of the mass loss was accounted for by the macrocell current for AAS concretes, indicating that this type of test underestimates the corrosion of the steel in AAS concrete. The steel bars in the AAS concretes gave a much higher negative half-cell potential value, presumably due to the influence of sulfides. In summary, it has been established that the criteria for assessing the onset and progress of corrosion of steel in Portland cement concrete are not suitable for the same purpose in the range of AAS concretes studied.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".