MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001361050 · doi:10.1680/coma.800062

Engineering properties of concrete made with slate waste

2010· article· en· W2001361050 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan Oti, John Kinuthia, Jiping Bai, R. Delpak, D. G. Snelson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAggregate (composite)CrackingMortarMaterials scienceCompressive strengthCementComposite materialMicrostructureProperties of concreteGeotechnical engineeringElastic modulusMetallurgyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the engineering properties and microstructure of concrete incorporating slate waste aggregates generated from roofing slate production in the UK. Various concrete mixtures were designed using different sizes of slate waste as aggregate replacement. Concrete produced with limestone aggregate was used as control. The results showed that concrete produced with limestone aggregate tended to fail predominantly through the interfacial zone between the aggregate surface and the cement paste and mortar, without any observed aggregate fragmentation. In contrast, the concrete made with slate waste aggregate showed signs of failure emanating from both the interfacial zone as well as from the cracking and subsequent fragmentation of the aggregates. The findings show that the concrete made with slate waste aggregates attained compressive strength of 25–30 N/mm 2 , splitting strength of 2–3 N/mm 2 and elastic modulus of 25–32 kN/mm 2 thus indicating potential for using slate waste as a replacement for limestone aggregate in most low- to medium-strength engineering applications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction MaterialsSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207