Life Cycle Assessment of Waste Glass Powder Incorporation on Concrete: A Bridge Retrofit Study Case
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction sector is responsible for some of the highest energy and natural resources consumption. In this context, new materials and solutions are created aimed at developing sustainable alternatives. While the literature presents papers that evaluate the mechanical and durability properties of concrete with glass waste powder and account for its environmental impact, no papers have executed the evaluation considering the retrofit of bridges. Furthermore, no papers evaluating the materials, construction, and maintenance could be found. Hence, this study proposes a technical and sustainable solution for the retrofit of the Third Bridge of Vitoria, an important intercity urban connector. This study evaluates both the technical and the environmental performance of structural concrete elements, considering the partial substitution of cement with glass waste powder and a baseline scenario with conventional concrete. The environmental impacts were evaluated through the life cycle assessment tool. The results indicate that incorporating waste glass powder in the prestressed hollow-core slabs as a partial cement replacement can improve the durability-related properties and mitigate environmental impact. It also shows that the manufacturing phase is the most impactful and that glass powder can significantly reduce the impact of maintenance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it