Clay as a Sustainable Binder for Concrete—A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The negative environmental impacts of Portland cement as a binder in the construction industry have created a growing impetus to develop sustainable alternative binders. Various types of clay have been considered as potential cement replacements. The impact of clays as cement replacement depends on the dosage and treatment methods. This paper presents a comprehensive review to determine the effects of different types of clay on the fresh and hardened properties of concrete mixtures by analyzing the experimental database reported by the literature, including raw, calcined, modified, nano, and organo. This study intends to show the process of optimizing the use of clay in concrete, the reason behind converting raw clay to modified types, and research gaps through a comparison study between different types of clays. The present review study shows that clay-based concrete mixtures have higher thixotropy and yield stress values, improving shape stability. This results in lower early-age shrinkage of the concrete. However, the high floc strength of clay-based concrete causes a reduction in flowability. Treatment methods of raw clay, such as calcination and nano-sized clay particles, improve concrete compressive strength. General results of the previous studies highlight that all types of clay investigated positively affect the resistance of concrete to environmental attack.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".