On the subtilities of rebar corrosion behaviour in cracked concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive mechanistic corrosion model to simulate rebar corrosion in non-uniform corrosive microenvironments caused by cracking and exposure conditions. The proposed model comprehensively investigates all possible corrosion mechanisms in cracked concrete, addressing an experimental phenomenon that has perplexed experts for decades. In particular, it aims to elucidate the marked difference in corrosion behaviour observed in the presence of thin versus wide cracks. This study demonstrates that self-healing is the sole mechanism differentiating the corrosion behavior of thin and wide cracks, a finding enabled by advanced numerical modeling and experimental validation. Achieving this required a sophisticated physics-based model capable of capturing the major features of reinforcement corrosion in cracked concrete. The ability to selectively activate or deactivate specific mechanisms in the model provides a unique lens to isolate their contributions, which is often impractical in experimental setups. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the concept of a “critical crack width”, below which reinforcement corrosion is unlikely to pose a significant concern.
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".