Development of volcanic pumice based cement and lightweight concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of investigations on the suitability of using volcanic pumice (VP) as cement replacement material and as coarse aggregate in lightweight concrete production are reported. Tests were conducted on cement by replacing 0–50% of cement by mass and on concrete by replacing 0–100% of coarse aggregate by volume. The physical and chemical properties of VP were critically reviewed to evaluate the possible influence on both fresh and hardened properties of cement and concrete. The standard tests on different mixtures of Portland cement and volcanic pumice powder (VPP) mixtures provided encouraging results, comparable to those for blended Portland fly ash cement, and showed good potential for manufacturing Portland volcanic pumice cement with higher setting time and low heat of hydration using up to 15% of VPP. The properties of volcanic pumice concrete (VPC) using different percentages of volcanic pumice aggregate were evaluated by conducting a comprehensive series of tests on workability, strength, shrinkage and permeability. It is concluded that VPC has sufficient strength and adequate density to be accepted as structural lightweight concrete. Design charts are presented to evaluate mix design parameters of VPC.
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 | 0.001 | 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".