Greenlandic waste incineration fly and bottom ash as secondary resource in mortar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, 900 tons incineration fly ash is shipped abroad annually from Greenland for deposits, whereas the 6,000 tons incineration bottom ash is deposited locally.These incineration ashes could be valuable in concrete production, where the cement has to be shipped to Greenland.For this purpose, the effects on compressive strengths of mortars by substituting cement or sand by raw, washed and electrodialytically treated fly ash or bottom ash were investigated.Parts of the experimental fly ash had been pre-treated by either washing with distilled water or electrodialytically treated to remove salts and by the latter method, also heavy metals.Mortar samples were cast where cement (5%-20%) or sand (5%-10%) was replaced with fly ash or bottom ash, together with references without replacements.The compressive strengths were measured after 7, 14, 28 and 42 days.Replacing cement by fly ash resulted in lower compressive strength at 20% content of fly ash.At 5% replacement with raw fly ash a compressive strength similar to the reference was seen.However, using washed and electrodialytically treated ash lead to lower strengths.The lowest compressive strength was seen when replacing both sand with bottom ash and cement with fly ash.Based on the compressive strength tests, it is found that using Greenlandic incineration ashes in mortar as 5% cement replacement could consume all ash instead of disposals, and could thus turn the ashes into a local resource and simultaneously reduce the import of cement.
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".