Study on Utilization of Fly Ash Aggregates in Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the fine and coarse aggregates were completely replaced by fly ash aggregates in fly ash concrete. A mix design was done for M20 grade of concrete by IS method. Ordinary Portland cement of 43 grade was selected and fly ash aggregates were prepared by mixing fly ash with cement and water. The properties of fly ash fine aggregates and fly ash coarse aggregates were studied. The aggregate crushing value and aggregate impact value of fly ash coarse aggregates were also studied. The cement and fly ash proportions of 10:90, 12.5:87.5, 15:85, 17.5:82.5, 20:80 and 22.5:77.5 were tried with a suitable water cement ratio 0.3 to get the fly ash aggregates. The concrete cubes, cylinders and beams were cast with the fly ash aggregates obtained from the above six cement fly ash proportions. Then the compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength were tested and compared with control concrete. This paper briefly presents the compressive strength development of fly ash aggregate concrete at different ages. The split tensile strength and flexural strength of all the concrete mixes were also investigated at different days of curing.
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".