Experimental study of artificial lightweight aggregates using coal fly ash and epoxy resin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lack of natural aggregates in the future is unavoidable, which generates issues for building development. For many industries, natural resources constitute a significant source of revenue. As a result, light artificial aggregate is produced to anticipate the decreasing source of natural aggregate. Production of artificial geopolymer aggregates, fly ash from the burning of coal has been proposed. This paper investigates the optimal proportion of epoxy resin and coal fly ash-based synthetic aggregates. The artificial aggregates are produced following specific gravity and compressive strength standards that may be used as a component of lightweight structural concrete (LWC). The production polymer lightweight aggregate (PLA) comes from a combination of coal fly ash and epoxy resin. The results show that PLA 50:50 to PLA 74:26 can be used for 6 hours to make structural concrete with a strength of more than 17 MPa. PLA 80:20 could achieve compressive strength with the range of 7-17 MPa. PLA 84:16 achieves a compressive strength range of 0.35 to 7 MPa and is utilized as a non-structural element. However, the flexural strength values in concrete LWC 70:30 and LWC 80:20 are higher, at 46.1% and 7.63%, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".