MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006577274

Use of porous lightweight aggregate in high performance concrete as a carrier of chemical admixtures and curing water

2011· article· en· W7006577274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir entrainmentCuring (chemistry)CrackingUltimate tensile strengthCompressive strengthAggregate (composite)Pervious concretePorosity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal curing of concrete can be achieved by soaking porous lightweight aggregate (LWA) in water before its introduction into the concrete mix as a partial replacement for normal density aggregate. This technique is particularly useful for low water-cement ratio concrete, for which self-desiccation can lead to autogenous shrinkage, tensile stresses and cracking at early ages. A research project has been undertaken to develop low-shrinkage high performance concrete for the design of concrete structures with long service life. One specific objective was to optimize the concrete mix design by introducing selected chemical admixtures into the concrete mix by using porous lightweight aggregate as a carrier. Expanded shale lightweight aggregate sand was soaked in a solution of water and given admixtures, such as a shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA) and/or a corrosion inhibitor (CI), prior to mixing. Several fresh and hardened concrete properties were measured and compared to those of a similar concrete mix, in which the given chemical admixtures were added directly into the mix according to the manufacturer?s specifications. The results showed that this new admixture delivery method produced no adverse effects on the desired fresh and hardened concrete properties, including compressive strength and autogenous shrinkage. The addition of SRA through LWA mitigated chemical interactions between the air entraining admixture and the SRA, which was previously found to reduce the effectiveness of the air entraining admixture. For instance, when SRA was delivered through LWA, it was found that the target air content of 5% could be achieved with 10 times less air entraining admixture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207