Assessing the Corrosion Behavior of Carbon and Stainless-Steel Bars Exposed to Carbonated Fly Ash and Slag Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion of steel reinforcement bars (rebar) in concrete is a significant issue that directly impacts the durability and structural integrity of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, especially in chloride-rich environments. This thesis examines the corrosion behavior of both carbon steel and stainless steel rebars embedded in mortar and concrete containing carbonated supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), specifically fly ash (FA) and slag. These SCMs were treated through CO₂ sequestration processes. The study employed chloride diffusion for mortar specimens and admixed chloride concrete specimens, alongside rapid screening tests, to evaluate their performance. The research compares the electrochemical behavior of treated and untreated SCMs at replacement levels of 15%, 30%, and 45% under chloride exposure. Corrosion performance was assessed using open circuit potential and linear polarization resistance measurements. The chloride diffusion results showed that CO₂-treated FA and slag significantly improved corrosion resistance, particularly at higher replacement levels, with carbonated FA showing the best overall performance. While rapid screening test results indicated lower corrosion resistance for treated fly ashes (FA2 and FA3) compared to untreated FA1 in terms of icorr values, Ecorr measurements suggested better performance for the treated FA1. This disparity highlights the complexity of interpreting these electrochemical parameters across different SCMs. Given that SCMs generally require extended hydration periods, the treatment process seems to further delay hydration. Introducing chloride at an early stage and prematurely testing the material resulted in poorer performance. Therefore, longer-term curing process for the rapid screening test is recommended for a more accurate assessment of performance. Overall, this research offers valuable insights into the potential for CO₂-treated SCMs to enhance the sustainability and durability of RC structures, while also providing guidance on their optimal use in chloride-laden environments to design more resilient infrastructure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".