Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work intends to reduce the carbon footprint and increase the sustainability of hydraulic lime (HL) mortars and concretes, a growing market in both new building and refurbishment, by partially replacing HL with limestone. Limestone cements are widely used in the world. Portland cement (PC) is partially replaced with limestone to reduce the large carbon print of cement and improve sustainability. The effect of limestone in PC has been widely investigated; however, the effect of limestone in HL has not yet been investigated. HLs contain clinkers identical to those in PC; therefore, this article first reviews the effect of limestone in PC and then experimentally investigates its impact in HL. The results showed that limestone is active in HL. The limestone changed the microstructure of the HL paste and the nature of the phases formed upon hydration, with calcium carbosilicate hydrates (resulting from dicalcium silicate and calcium carbonate [C2S-CaCO3] reaction) and carboaluminate hydrates (resulting from tricalcium aluminate and calcium carbonate [C3A-CaCO3] reaction) growing on interfaces and in the matrix. Limestone replacement enhanced the performance of the HL by improving strength: a 10 % replacement increased HL strength (compressive by 36 % and flexural by 56 %). A 20 % replacement enhanced strength up to 125 and 40 days (compressive and flexural, respectively); therefore, the limestone replacement threshold is higher in HL than in PC. The rise in strength does not affect moisture and vapor permeability, and the composites remain ‘breathable.’ Contrary to PC, limestone reduces the water demand of HL mortars. The superior strength of the limestone-filled HL mortars is attributed to their lower water demand, an increase of early hydrates, and their placement—strengthening transition zones and interparticle links.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".