Use of a Bulk Resistivity Index to Evaluate the Permeability Performance of Blended Cements and SCMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most specifications for supplementary cementitious materials focus on reactivity as related to strength development. However, beyond strength, the other major benefit from use of SCMs, whether added separately or in blended cements, is their impact on changing the pore structure of the cementitious matrix resulting in improved resistance to ingress of aggressive fluids, i.e. lower permeability. ASTM C1876 and similar test methods in other standards for assessing the bulk resistivity of concrete already exist, but in 2025, ASTM subcommittee C09.48 on Performance of Cementitious Mixtures has adopted ASTM C1952, a standard test method for assessing the relative bulk resistivity of mortar cubes containing SCMs to that of a Portland cement or Portland -limestone cement control. It is anticipated that this test method will be adopted in materials specifications as a performance indicator for the relative permeability reduction to be expected from use of SCMs and blended cements. This test method is also a better tool than strength activity tests for determining whether a proposed new material is a reactive pozzolan or just an inert filler. Details of the test method, and test results, including precision data are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".