MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Innovative use of brick wastes as coarse aggregate in concrete

2020· article· en· W3112439603 on OpenAlexaff
Naraindas Bheel, K. Rajesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Rehana Bhagam, Adeyemi Adesina, Shanker Lal Meghwar, Noor Ahmed Memon

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)SlumpBrickCompressive strengthDemolition wasteFlexural strengthDemolitionEnvironmental scienceFly ashMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialCivil engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coarse aggregates occupy the largest volume in concrete which is one of the most widely used construction material as per industry surveys. The depleting supply of coarse aggregate coupled with the high greenhouse gasses emissions from its processing and transportation has resulted in a need to find alternativesthat can be utilized as coarse aggregate. Of such materials that are available in abundance locally in Pakistan are brick wastes that are generated from the construction and demolition processes. In order to evaluate the feasibility of using brick wastes as coarse aggregate in producing concrete, this study was undertaken. Six concrete mixtures were made by incorporating brick wastes as a replacement for the natural coarse aggregates and the corresponding properties evaluated. The properties evaluated are the slump, density, compressive strength and flexural strength. Results from this study indicated that the use of brick wastes as coarse aggregates in concrete resulted in a decrease in the slump and mechanical properties. However, concrete mixtures incorporating brick wastes up to 100% replacement of natural coarse aggregate exhibited flexural and compressive strength higher than 2 MPa and 10 MPa respectively. Nonetheless, the incorporation of brick wastes as coarse aggregate resulted in a decrease in density due to its lower bulk density in comparison to that of the natural coarse aggregate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207