Performance of Mortars with Commercially-Available Reactive Magnesium Oxide as Alternative Binder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper intends to analyze the performance of mortars with reactive MgO, as a sustainable alternative to cement. Six different MgOs from Australia, Canada, and Spain were used in the production of mortars as partial substitutes for cement, namely 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25% (by weight). MgOs with different levels of reactivity were used to analyze its influence on the performance of MgO mortars. In order to evaluate the mechanical performance of these mortars, compressive strength, flexural strength, dynamic modulus of elasticity, and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests were performed. Compressive strength tests showed that the use of 25% reactive MgO can cause a decrease of this property of between 28% and 49%. The use of reactive MgO affected the other mechanical properties less. This paper also intends to analyze the durability performance of mortars with reactive MgO. To that effect, water absorption by capillarity was assessed. In this research, the effect of using MgO on the shrinkage was also analyzed. It was found that shrinkage may decrease by more than a half in some cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".