Utilization of granite powder and glass powder in reactive powder concrete: assessment of strength and long-term durability properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to assess the mechanical and long-term durability performance of reactive powder concrete (RPC) containing granite powder (GrP) as cement replacement and waste glass powder (GP) as quartz sand replacement. The workability and mechanical behaviour of RPC containing various proportions of GrP and GP are assessed for different water/binder (w/b) ratios (0.3, 0.35, 0.4, and 0.45). The water resistance and tightness of RPC are measured by monitoring the electrical resistivity, water absorption, sorptivity, and chloride migration over a one-year period. Results reveal that substitution of GrP and GP at optimum levels of 15% and 30% respectively enhances the performance of RPC with the achievement of satisfiable workability at a 0.35 w/b ratio. A significant increase in the resistance towards chloride penetration and electrical resistivity was also observed with increasing ages. Thus, glass powder and granite powder can be considered as alternative construction materials providing economical and ecological efficiency.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".