A Study of the Functionality of Hydrated Lime as an Admixture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that hydrated lime improves the workability and water retention of Portland cement (PC) mortars. PC-lime mixes can be reworked without increasing entrained air thus not undermining durability. In addition, lime lowers strength and stiffness making PC mortars more deformable. However, the use of hydrated lime in PC composites has largely decreased due to the use of plasticisers. These enhance workability and lower cement content reducing heat of hydration. As they are water reducers, they are expected to decrease permeability, minimise shrinkage, enhance ultimate strength and accelerate early-strength gain; leading to stronger, durable composites. Despite these advantages, plasticisers have drawbacks related to wastage and environmental protection. This paper studies the properties of PC-lime mortars and their plasticised equivalents. It concludes that lime raises mortar water demand however, this does not reduce strength but on the contrary, mortars of low lime content (lime amounting 1/4th the cement), have superior flexural and compressive strengths than their plasticised equivalents. The use of lime delivered PC mortars with excellent workability and surface finish and lack of segregation and bleeding. It is concluded that, when lime amounts 1/4th the cement, the mortars are stronger (in tension and compression, at both early and mature age) and gain strength at a faster rate than plasticised mixes. However, when lime equals the cement content, strengths are lower than those of plasticised mixes. It was also noted that lime enhanced bond strength at all ages; and that the ultimate bond strength is greater for the low lime than for the high lime content mortars.
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".