MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412942935 · doi:10.1680/jmacr.25.00060

Exploring microscopic and mechanical tools to uncover the anisotropic damage evolution of prestressed concrete sleepers affected by internal swelling reactions

2025· article· en· W4412942935 on OpenAlexaff
Rennan Medeiros, Leandro Sanchez, Antônio Carlos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueMagazine of Concrete Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwellingPrestressed concreteAnisotropyStructural engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work examined the anisotropic behaviour of internal swelling reactions (ISRs), specifically alkali–silica reaction (ASR) and delayed ettringite formation, in prestressed concrete sleepers retrieved from a northern Brazilian railroad. The research highlights the role of restraint, driven by prestress forces and the sleeper’s geometry, in ISR-induced damage progression. Visual inspection, damage rating index analysis, stiffness damage tests and scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy were used to evaluate cracking patterns, damage extent, mechanical properties loss and the chemical composition of ISR products. The results indicate that restraint influences crack propagation, the interplay of mechanisms and damage anisotropy, with the shoulders of the sleepers exhibiting greater deterioration than the restrained centres. Chemical analyses revealed variations in ASR gel and ettringite composition, which were related to swelling potential and damage severity. These findings emphasise the influence of anisotropy in ISR-affected members and underscore its importance in guiding maintenance strategies for ISR-affected sleepers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagazine of Concrete ResearchSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207