Concrete substrate moisture requirements for durable concrete repairs – a field study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In concrete repair specifications, the required moisture condition of the substrate, which can play an important role for bond development, and, ultimately, on the long-term repair / overlay durability, is generally ill-defined and addressed without due consideration to the given substrate characteristics. The standard specification, if any, is to require saturated surface dry ( SSD ) condition of the substrate prior to application of cementitious repair materials, which is theoretically achieved after saturating the substrate and then letting the surface just start to dry out. This does provide an intuitive solution founded on rational considerations, but it has never really been precisely defined, measured, nor validated. The influence of substrate surface moisture on the bond between the existing concrete and the new repair material is an issue of significant importance. This paper revisits the question, in light of results from a project designed to develop guidelines for moisture conditioning of a concrete substrate prior to a cementitious repair, which was part of a larger effort to develop guidelines for surface preparation of concrete prior to repair. Over the course of the project, multiple series of test slabs were repaired after being subjected to different surface moisture conditioning and then tested for bond strength tests at different ages. The findings are discussed, together with those from previous studies, and recommendations are issued.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it