Electrical Resistivity Measurements on Hardened Concrete Exposed to Various Curing Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating concrete quality and performance, especially determining the resistance of concrete to fluid and ion ingress, is fundamental to estimating concrete’s durability and predicting the service life of concrete structures. Both bulk and surface electrical resistivity tests have gained increasing interest as rapid and repeatable indicators of concrete’s resistance to fluid ingress. In this study, concrete electrical resistivity was measured at the ages of 56 and 91 days on specimens from five concrete mixtures exposed to different curing environments and storage solutions. Both bulk and surface resistivity of concrete in each curing condition are compared, and the effect of curing methods on electrical resistivity is discussed. The results show that conditioning in a highly-conductive storage solution, such as a simulated pore solution, led to a lower concrete resistivity measurement than when stored in saturated limewater. The effect of mixture compositions on measured resistivity revealed that for the same cementitious materials, the electrical resistivity increased as the w/cm ratio decreased, and a linear correlation between the w/cm ratio and concrete electrical resistivity was obtained.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".