Assessment of additional ASR damage resulting from residual expansion tests using the DRI and SDT test methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, ASR damage evaluation of concrete road infrastructure can be done following FHWA protocol (Fournier et al., 2010) [1]. The current level of ASR damage (diagnosis) is evaluated using the Damage Rating Index (DRI) and the Stiffness Damage Test (SDT), and future potential of damage (prognosis) is assessed using residual expansion tests, in humid air (> 95 % RH and T = 38 ± 3 °C) and alkaline solution (NaOH 1 N, 38 ± 3 °C). While accelerated expansion tests on cores have been used for decades, they provide only limited insights into ASR severity, without providing information on the ASR damage mechanisms, nor allowing extrapolation to the structural level. The aim was to identify correlations between pre- and post-expansion test results and additional expansion generated by assessing the actual extent and mechanisms of extra ASR damage caused by these tests. Results of the expansion tests in humid air were inconclusive, making the test procedure questionable. On the other hand, residual expansion tests in alkaline solution proved to be more relevant for assessing potential future damage to concrete. No new damage mechanism related to the added alkalis could be identified. The results indicated a comparable progression of ASR damage between the NaOH solution and in situ conditions. A cracking pattern in concrete at high expansion levels due to ASR was identified based on petrographic examination of test specimens following residual expansion testing in 1 N NaOH solution.
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".