MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Properties of Alkali Activated Slag Concrete Incorporating Waste Materials as Aggregate: A Review

2019· review· en· W2968272956 on OpenAlexaff
Adeyemi Adesina

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Portland cementWaste managementMaterials scienceSlag (welding)DurabilityCementEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkali activated slag (AAS) has gained huge attention in recent years due to its ability to replace ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as a binder in concrete. A need to replace OPC is imminent due to the high carbon dioxide emitted into the environment during its production. However, the use of this type of binder did not eliminate the huge strain placed on the deposit of natural resources. With the demand for concrete predicted to rise significantly in coming years, this means there will be a consequential increase in the amount of natural deposits of aggregates exploited, as aggregates make up about 80% by the volume of concrete. Therefore, in order to meet this forthcoming demand of sustainable concrete, and reduce the excessive strain on the use of natural aggregates, it is essential to find alternative materials that can be used as aggregate in concrete using AAS as a binder. This paper summarizes experimental results from various studies on the use of waste materials on aggregate. The fresh and hardened properties, alongside the cost and sustainability indications, are explored. It was drawn from this review that more reduction in carbon dioxide emission and cost could be achieved with the use of waste materials as aggregate in concrete. In addition, concrete made with AAS as a binder and incorporating waste as aggregate showed similar/higher properties with those made with natural aggregate. However, proper selection of types of wastes and replacement levels of these waste materials used as aggregate is still required to achieve enhanced properties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207