Test methods for chloride diffusivity of blended cement pastes: a review by RILEM TC 298-EBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) is an important part of the roadmap for reducing CO 2 emissions and extending the service life of reinforced concrete structures. To accelerate the adoption of SCMs, the RILEM Technical Committee 298-EBD evaluates scaled-down cement paste test methods to assess the effect of SCM on resistance to chloride and sulfate ingress and reactivity, which are critical to concrete durability. This review focuses on methods for measuring chloride diffusivity and is divided into four sections: diffusivity models and parameters, diffusion test methods (including NMR and chloride measurements), migration test methods and implications for future research. Key insights highlight the complexities of multi-species ionic and molecular diffusion/migration, including various binding interactions, and compares the different measurement methodologies. The review also addresses the test scale and aggregate effects, noting the pros and cons of testing at the paste, mortar, and concrete scales. The review underscores the need for further investigation into testing protocols and the influence of SCM on chloride diffusion, emphasizing that comprehensive testing across different scales provides complementary information for assessing durability performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".