Large-scale apparatus for the quantitative evaluation of biorepair in a cracked concrete slab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biorepair of concrete uses microbial activity to repair cracks through the formation of calcium carbonate and biofilms . This new approach has already been demonstrated in the laboratory using small samples of cementitious paste or mortar. The objective of this research was to construct a large-scale laboratory apparatus to crack a reinforced concrete slab (2 m × 1 m × 0.15 m) and to quantify the performance and kinetics of an exo-biorepair method on two cracks with an opening of 430 ± 60 µm. Exo-biorepair was performed with two injections of nutrient media containing a consortium of indigenous bacteria, calcium lactate and mineral fillers . Quantitative assessment of water flow in the cracks showed a 99 % reduction in water flow after 11 weeks. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray dispersive analysis of the products in the volume of the cracks indicate that they contain biobased calcium carbonate and biofilm. This research confirms that exo-biorepair can be used to seal cracks using a standard injection method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".