Development and assessment of cement and concrete made of the burning of quinary by-product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the usability of new cement (NC) made by the burning of quinary by-product to make commercial binders. Chemical analysis of the by-products and NC as well as X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of NC, fineness, density, consistency, and setting time of NC paste, and slump in addition to compressive strength (CS) and splitting tensile strength (STS) of NC concrete (NCC) were conducted. The results suggested that chemical composition of by-products is suitable to make NC binder. The NC contains Ca3SiO5, Ca2SiO5, Ca3Al2O6, and Ca3Al2FeO10. The particles passing through the 200 um Sieve were 56% compared with 52% for Portland cement (PC). The density of the of NC was similar to that of PC. The NC needed 48% more water than PC for normal consistency. The initial and final setting-time of NC was 105 min and 225 min respectively which is much higher than that of PC (15 and 45 min). The slump, compressive strength and splitting tensile strength were slightly lower for concrete containing NC compared with that pf PC concrete. Although the CS and STS of NCC are the lowest, the rate of the CS and STS gain of NCC is greater than that of PCC. It was concluded that NC is a viable alternative to PC for the production of greener concrete.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".