A comparative study of the quality of sandcrete cement blocks and quarry dust cement blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase of construction activities in Ghana, there is an increasing demand in building materials leading to the shortage of the conventional materials. The informal sector is gradually seeing the introduction of quarry dust as a substitute of sand in block production. This paper focuses on a comparative analysis of the quality of sandcrete blocks and quarry dust cement blocks. Block samples were gathered from various suppliers around the Prampram and Dawhenya areas and through various laboratory tests were tested for their dimension tolerance, water absorption and compressive strengths. Aggregate samples were also taken from suppliers for sieve analyses. The study revealed that the quarry dust cement blocks contained relatively higher percentages of coarse grade particles compared to the sandcrete blocks. The total average water absorption of sandcrete blocks was found to be 3.90% while quarry dust showed an improved value of 3.28%. Sandcrete blocks were averagely found to be of a higher compressive strength of 4.31N/mm2, with quarry dust at 3.0N/mm2. The study suggested the likelihood of a lesser use of cement in the production of quarry dust cement blocks due to the similarities in colour between the quarry dust and cement, hence, negatively affecting its compressive strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".