Measuring chloride binding in cementitious materials: A review by RILEM TC 298-EBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The phase assemblage evolution of binders with novel supplementary cementitious materials (SCM S ) during exposure to adverse environments needs to be quantified to accelerate their adoption, and further optimize binder formulation. As such, the interaction between chloride and cementitious matrices with novel SCMs needs to be quantified. The goal of workgroup 2 of RILEM TC EBD-298 is to assess the methods used to quantify chloride binding. This state-of-the-art report reviews the standardized and novel methods to measure chloride binding through an average content (acid/water soluble) or a specific bound content per phase (XRD, TGA, SEM–EDS, …). Each method is presented with respect to our current understanding of chloride binding and speciation in cementitious materials. The discussion around the purpose, use and reporting of each method highlights the gaps limiting the comparison between studies, in particular the lack of standard protocol, and complementary characterization. This review is the groundwork for a “cookbook” of experimental workflows to investigate chloride binding in modern cementitious binders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".