Dolomit k?kenli agregalar?n alkali-karbonat reaktivitesinin ara?t?r?lmas?
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
Son y?llarda ?lkemizdeki baz? betonarme k?pr? ayaklar?, alkali-silika reaksiyonu sonucu hasar g?rm??t?r. Oysaki alkali reaktif agregalar?n kullan?m?n?n betonda hasara yol a?abilece?i 1940'l? y?llardan beri bilinen bir olgudur. Bu konuda gerek yurti?inde gerekse yurtd???nda geni? ?apl? ara?t?rmalar yap?lm??t?r ve yap?lmaya devam etmektedir. Alkali silika reaksiyonu (ASR) gibi alkali karbonat reaksiyonu (ACR) da bir alkali agrega reaksiyonu t?r?d?r. ACR'nin betonda hasara yol a?abildi?i 1950'li y?llardan beri bilinmektedir. ?lkemizde bu konuda yayg?n ?al??malar yap?lmad??? gibi, hen?z hasar da rapor edilmemi?tir. Ancak beton ?retiminde dolomit k?kenli agregalar?n kullan?m?n?n yayg?nla?mas? ile konunun ?nem kazand??? d???n?lmektedir. Dolomitlerde ACR ile dolomit ve kire?ta??, kendilerinden daha b?y?k hacimli olan kalsite ve brusite d?n???r (dedolomitizasyon). Olu?an genle?me betonda harita ?eklinde ?atlaklara yol a?ar. Reaksiyonun ?nlenebilirli?i konusunda farkl? g?r??ler mevcuttur. Kimi ara?t?rmac?lar mineral katk?lar?n ve lityum tuzlar?n?n reaksiyonu ?nleme konusunda ASR'de oldu?u gibi etkili oldu?unu iddia ederken, kimi ara?t?rmac?lar ise bu t?r ?nlemlerin reaksiyonu durduramad??? kan?s?ndad?r. Tez kapsam?nda ilk olarak reaktivite g?steren bir agrega se?ilmi?tir. Se?ilen agrega kullan?larak mineral ve kimyasal katk?lar?n reaksiyonu ?nlemedeki etkinli?i, iki farkl? h?zland?r?lm?? deney y?ntemi (AAR2 ve AAR5) ile ara?t?r?lm??t?r. Sonu?lar? k?yaslamak amac?yla, literat?rde Alkali-Karbonat Reaksiyonu i?in referans agregas? olarak kabul edilen Kanada agregas? da temin edilmi? ve ayn? deneyler y?r?t?lm??t?r. Reaksiyonun geli?imi petrografik incelemelerle ve SEM analizleri ile izlenmi?tir. Her iki agregada da ASR ve ACR'nin birlikte geli?ti?i g?r?lm??t?r. Mineral ve kimyasal katk?lar, reaksiyonu engellemede belli mertebelerde etkili olmaktad?r. Some reinforced concrete bridges have been deteriorated by alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in our country during the last decades. However, deleterious effects of ASR for concrete structures have been known since 1940. There are a lot of experimental studies denoted on ASR in Turkey and in abroad. Alkali carbonate reaction (ACR) in concrete is a kind of alkali aggregate reactions and detrimental effect of it has been known since 1950. However, the detailed investigations have not been conducted on ACR and damage has not been reported yet due to ACR in our country. Dolomites are now used in the production of concrete and it is expected that this phenomenon will be important for the construction industry in near future. Dolomite and limestone convert to the brucite and calcite due to alkali carbonate reaction which causes expansion in concrete and map cracking. Different investigators suggested different preventing measurements in the literature. According to some resources mineral admixtures and lithium salts are effective for preventing the ACR. However, contradictory test results have also been reported. Firstly, a reactive aggregate from Turkey was chosen. Then, influence of mineral and chemical admixtures on controlling the reaction was investigated by conducting two accelerated test methods (AAR2 and AAR5). In order to compare those test results, Canada aggregate, which is considered as reference Alkali-Carbonate reactive aggregate, was supplied and the same tests were also conducted on this aggregate. Development of the reaction was observed by petrographic examinations and SEM analysis. It was seen that both ASR and ACR are available in both of the aggregates. Mineral and chemical admixtures are effective on certain degrees on controlling the reaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it