Use of recycled glass powder to improve the performance properties of high volume fly ash-engineered cementitious composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-volume fly ash (HVFA) Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) show reduced strength and physical properties, especially at early curing ages. The goal of this study was to improve their strength characteristics by incorporating recycled glass powder (RGP) for enhanced material sustainability. Composites containing 15, 30, 45 and 60% RGP as a replacement for FA, with FA to cement ratio of 2.2, were studied in HVFA-ECC. Standard ECC mixtures with FA to Portland cement (FA/PC) ratio of 1.2, and HVFA-ECC with FA/C ratio of 2.2 without RGP were also produced as control mixtures. The experimental results confirmed that incorporating RGP into HVFA-ECC significantly improves compressive and flexural strengths, chloride ion resistance and electrical resistivity, and results in a comparable ductility to standard ECC, based on FA to cement ratio of 1.2. Furthermore, self-healing of HVFA-ECC was accelerated and final recovery rate of strength and physical properties improved. Microstructural analysis showed high portlandite consumption and the formation of low Ca/Si ratio in new C-S-H structures near C-Na-Al-S-H as the main outcome of the binary admixture in ECC.
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) | 0.000 | 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".