Effect of acid attack coupled with elevated temperatures on carbonation-cured calcium sulfoaluminate and ordinary Portland cement paste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement pastes subjected to water and carbonation curing, followed by exposure to sulfuric acid and elevated temperatures of 200 °C and 600 °C. Carbonation curing significantly enhanced the performance of CSA samples, which retained 82.90% of their strength after acid attack, compared to only 31.73% strength retention in OPC. Thermogravimetric analysis revealed the presence of calcium carbonate in carbonation-cured CSA samples, which decomposes at higher temperatures and thereby improves thermal resistance. Visual inspection showed that water-cured OPC samples developed a thick gypsum layer, with X-ray diffraction confirming traces of thaumasite, which masked internal damage and corrosion. In contrast, water-cured CSA samples displayed minimal visible changes, while carbonation-cured CSA samples exhibited no visible changes. After exposure to elevated temperatures, extensive cracking was observed in carbonation-cured OPC samples, whereas carbonation-cured CSA samples exhibited minimal cracking, highlighting their superior resistance to combined acid and thermal deterioration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".