Mercury porosimetry: An inappropriate method for the measurement of pore size distributions in cement-based materials

1,168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

An investigation on the use of zeolite aggregates for internal curing of concrete (2013, neutral): “corresponding to the diameters of their neck entrances (pores of smaller diameters) [51].”
Prediction of self-desiccation in low water-to-cement ratio pastes based on pore structure evolution (2013, methodology): “The method has been criticised as suffering from artefacts, such as damage to the pore structure by drying and other sample preparation steps, inadequacy of the assumed model (Washburn equation assuming cylindrical pores equally accessible from the surface) and damage to small pores at high intrusio”
A comparison between different foaming methods for the synthesis of light weight geopolymers (2014, background): “appearing as “ink-bottle” pores, in scanning electron images [19-32].”
Statistical indentation techniques for hydrated nanocomposites: concrete, bone, and shale (2007, methodology): “Given the di¢ culty of estimating the porosity of cementitious materials with classical methods[39], the statistical indentation technique provides a new non-intrusive way to determine the porosity of nanogranular materials from their nanomechanical contact response.”