MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120150215 · doi:10.3390/ma14020351

Green Concrete for a Circular Economy: A Review on Sustainability, Durability, and Structural Properties

2021· review· en· W3120150215 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityGround granulated blast-furnace slagSilica fumeCementitiousMetakaolinPortland cementCompressive strengthFly ashCementSustainabilityEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A primary concern of conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC) is associated with the massive amount of global cement and natural coarse aggregates (NCA) consumption, which causes depletion of natural resources on the one hand and ecological problems on the other. As a result, the concept of green concrete (GC), by replacing cement with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), and metakaolin (MK), or replacing NCA with recycled coarse aggregates, can play an essential role in addressing the environmental threat of PCC. Currently, there is a growing body of literature that emphasizes the importance of implementing GC in concrete applications. Therefore, this paper has conducted a systematic literature review through the peer-reviewed literature database Scopus. A total of 114 papers were reviewed that cover the following areas: (1) sustainability benefits of GC, (2) mechanical behavior of GC in terms of compressive strength, (3) durability properties of GC under several environmental exposures, (4) structural performance of GC in large-scale reinforced beams under shear and flexure, and (5) analytical investigation that compares the GC shear capacities of previously tested beams with major design codes and proposed models. Based on this review, the reader will be able to select the optimum replacement level of cement with one of the SCMs to achieve a certain concrete strength range that would suit a certain concrete application. Also, the analysis of durability performance revealed that the addition of SCMs is not recommended in concrete exposed to a higher temperature than 400 °C. Moreover, combining GGBFS with FA in a concrete mix was noticed to be superior to PCC in terms of long-term resistance to sulfate attack. The single most striking observation to emerge from the data comparison of the experimentally tested beams with the available concrete shear design equations is that the beams having up to 70% of FA as a replacement to OPC or up to 100% of RCA as a replacement to NCA were conservatively predicted by the equations of Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE-1997), the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-19), and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA-A23.3-14).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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