Equivalent Performance with Half the Clinker Content using PLC and SCM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to growing pressures to reduce the clinker content in cement, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA A3001-08) introduced a new classification of cement in 2008, this being Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) containing up to 15% limestone. This paper presents data from laboratory and field studies on the properties of concrete produced with portland limestone cement (PLC) and moderate to high levels of supplementary cementing materials (SCM). The test data indicate that PLC with up to 15% limestone can be manufactured to produce equivalent performance to a portland cement (PC) in terms of concrete strength and other properties, including durability. The equivalent performance is achieved by optimizing the PLC with regards to composition and particle-size distribution, and requires intergrinding rather than blending of the portland cement and limestone. The performance of concrete produced with PLC in combination with a wide range of SCM is also equivalent to that of concrete produced with PC and the same SCM. Full-scale field trials have been conducted with concretes with blends of PLC and SCM and these concretes provide similar or improved performance compared to PC concrete; in one case the clinker content represented less than 50% of the total cementitious material. A clinker reduction of 50% represents a very significant reduction in the carbon footprint associated with the production of portland cement clinker.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".