Ultra-Fine Treated and Untreated Walnut Shell Ash Incorporated Cement Mortar: Properties and Environmental Impact Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utilization of walnut shell (WS) as partial replacement of aggregates and cement is getting more attention in modern research on construction material. Though WS provides lightweight concrete, but less compressive strength and porous structure of concrete is still problematic for its utilization. Thus, this study is using untreated walnut shell powder (UWSP) and ultra-fine treated walnut shell ash (UFTWSA) as a substitute for cement. Different weight fractions of UWSP and UFTWSA (5, 10, 15 and 20%) were used to investigate the influence on fresh and hardened properties of cement mortar. Further, the durability of all mixes was evaluated by immersing them in different concentrations of MgSO4 (5, 10 and 20%). The experimental results revealed that the inclusion of UWSP and UFTWSA reduces the fresh and hardened properties of cement mortar. Moreover, UWSP addition has more negative impact on fresh and hardened properties of cement mortar as compared to UFTWSA. The hardened properties of mortar specimens remarkably decreased by immersing in MgSO4 solution. However, all mixes contained UWSP and UFTWSA and not exposed to acid attack achieved more than 30 MPa and can be classified as good type mortar depending on obtained ultra-sonic plus velocity values (UPV).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".