Measuring concrete air-entraining admixture adsorption on coal ash using three-phase equilibrium and fluorescence-based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript presents two novel methods of evaluating the adsorption of air-entraining admixtures (AEAs) by coal ashes used in cementitious mixtures. A developed three-phase equilibrium (TPE) method measures fly ash adsorption capacity accounting for carbon adsorption, Ca 2+ interactions with AEA, and the equilibrium between the two. A fluorescence-based method (FBM) was also developed, utilizing a non-ionic NP-10 surfactant as a representative for AEA. This study verifies the applicability and accuracy of the TPE and FBM methods using seven class C and F coal ashes with a wide range of loss on ignition values, varying from 0.2 to 15.6 %, and three commercial AEAs. Verified with foam index test results, the TPE method was applicable to all tested AEAs and coal ashes. The results were consistent between the FBM and TPE methods when comparing rosin- and fatty acid-based AEAs, but less consistent when using a sulfonate-based AEA. These findings help us understand the applicability and limitations of the TPE and FBM methods and provide two methods for quantifying adsorption in fly ash samples.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".