Effect of Glass Powder on Concrete Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As defined by the American Concrete Institute (ACI), alternative supplementary cementitious materials (ASCMs) and local materials are very important in concrete sustainability. As an ASCM, glass powder (GP) shows excellent pozzolanic properties. This paper focuses on characterization and the effect of GP on concrete properties compared to those of Class F fly ash (FFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). Concrete incorporating 0, 20 and 30% of GP and other concrete mixes containing 30% of FFA or GGBS were cast. The concrete mixes considered in this study have water to binder (w/b) mass ratio ranging from 0.35 to 0.65. The mechanical properties such as compressive strength and durability including chloride ions permeability and chloride ions diffusion are evaluated. The results show that GP develops effects on mechanical properties similar to those of FFA and performs better than GGBS and FFA in terms of permeability reduction. GP reduces dramatically chloride permeability of concrete regardless w/b ratio, favoring an improvement of the concrete durability. Because of the interesting permeability developed by concretes incorporating GP, its use as an ASCM is promising.
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 | 0.001 | 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".