Production of concrete paving blocks (CPB) utilising electroplating residues – evaluation of mechanical and micro‐structural properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study was to use electroplating waste [blasting dust (BD) and electroplating sludge] for the production of concrete paving blocks (CPBs) by means of the solidification/stabilisation technique and to characterise the mechanical and micro‐structural properties of CPBs. Granulometric tests showed that electroplating residues have a size range that allows their use as aggregates. Blocks were produced with compositions of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25% BD and electroplating sludge, and reference blocks (REF) were produced without the addition of residues. Blocks were cured for 7, 14, 28, 60 or 90 days. The blocks produced with 5%, 10% and 15% BD had compression resistances at 28 days of 42.60 MPa, 37.57 MPa and 35.6 MPa, respectively, all of which are above the Brazilian limits for paved areas to be used by light vehicles (35 MPa). In contrast, the specimens produced with electroplating sludge behaved differently, probably due to their water/agglomerate ratio and the limited interaction of the cement matrix with the aggregate, which influenced the observed compression resistance values. Only the blocks manufactured with 5% electroplating sludge showed resistance values above the limit established by Brazilian standards (35.43 MPa), but the values were inferior to those of the reference block (37.35 MPa). Therefore, the characteristics of the electroplating residues (BD and electroplating sludge) are acceptable as raw materials in civil construction. The solidification/stabilisation technique also appeared to be quite promising for the incorporation of electroplating residues into cement matrix for the fabrication of CPBs. © 2012 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".