Classification and quantification of minor iron-sulfide concentrations in concrete aggregate using automated mineralogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Iron sulfide concentrations and mineral associations triggering the internal deterioration of concrete structures are still enigmatic. Incidences of internal sulfate attacks induced by iron sulfide-containing concrete aggregates appear worldwide. Severe cases are reported from Canada, the United States of America, and Ireland. Moreover, conservative limits for the total sulfur content of aggregates increased the need to dispose of otherwise high-quality resources for concrete production. The maximum threshold values for total elemental sulfur in the European standard EN-12620 for concrete aggregates are $$\le$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> </mml:math> 1 wt. $$\%$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mo>%</mml:mo> </mml:math> , and as little as $$\le$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mo>≤</mml:mo> </mml:math> 0.1 wt. $$\%$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mo>%</mml:mo> </mml:math> if the non-stoichiometric iron-sulfide pyrrhotite (Fe (1-x) S) is present in the rock. This study investigates the potential of scanning electron microscopy-based automated mineralogy for mineral classification and the quantitative quality assessment for concrete aggregate material. Identifying the stoichiometrically closely related disulfide pyrite and monosulfide pyrrhotite is emphasized. The iron/sulfur ratio and greyscale variations in the electron backscatter images between pyrite and pyrrhotite were tested as additional differentiation criteria when acquiring mineral mapping and point-of-interest analysis. The added greyscale criterion yielded a better distinction between the two chemically similar phases. A good correlation was achieved when comparing results from energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy in automated mineralogy with wavelength-dispersive spectroscopy point analyses on the electron microprobe. Semi-quantification of the chemical data from automated mineralogy was computed for the total sulfur content in the petrographic samples. The total sulfur content of bulk samples, investigated by high-temperature combustion and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy, was consistent with the semi-quantitative results of automated mineralogy.
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 | 0.000 | 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".