Sulfate attack testing approaches from concrete to cement paste: A review by RILEM TC 298-EBD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most existing test methods determine the sulfate resistance of concrete using accelerated methods in the laboratory, on mortar or concrete specimens. However, these accelerated tests often use high sulfate concentrations or require very complicated setups, which may alter the deterioration mechanisms, while still being laborious and time-consuming. Additionally, the need for more sustainable binders and distinctive properties of systems incorporating emerging supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) may limit the applicability of conventional test methods. In this context, the Working Group 3 of RILEM TC 298-EBD aims to develop simple accelerated test methods on cement pastes for evaluating sulfate resistance, which directly investigate the reactive component of concrete. Working at this scale can provide reliable results in a much shorter time than traditional tests on mortars and concretes, while providing means to assess the impact of different SCMs and binders on the resistance to sulfate attack. This paper presents our first step, a critical literature review on sulfate deterioration testing from the concrete/mortar to the cement paste scale. We present a general introduction to sulfate attack, common test parameters, assessment methods, test setups for paste specimens, a discussion of potential approaches, and concluding remarks. Insights gained from this review will be instrumental in establishing an effective and reliable approach to sulfate deterioration testing on cement paste specimens.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 it