Assessing the reliability of laboratory test procedures for predicting concrete field performance against alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) affected structures show reduced serviceability and premature distress in over 50 countries worldwide. Several laboratory test protocols have been proposed to evaluate the potential reactivity of aggregates by varying the conditions known to trigger and sustain the reaction. Among them, the most popular methods are the accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT) and the concrete prism test (CPT). Nevertheless, exposure site data, displaying the behaviour of concrete blocks exposed to real environmental conditions, has increased considerably recently, showing significant discrepancies between laboratory and concrete field performance. This study explores the reliability of laboratory tests, indicating moderate accuracy in predicting field performance for the AMBT and the CPT. The findings highlight an opportunity for recalibration of these methods through advanced analytical models that account for environmental conditions, alkali content, and the presence of SCMs to improve predictive accuracy. These measures will enhance concrete infrastructure safety by identifying risks associated with incorporating AAR-prone aggregates into new structures.
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".