A Review of Self-Compacting Concrete Incorporating Waste Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As environmental concerns gain prominence worldwide, the significance of sustainable building practices cannot be understated. The burgeoning production of waste annually exacerbates these concerns, with projections indicating a likely increase in volume and corresponding environmental pollution. This review study offers a sustainable approach to address this issue by exploring the potential of waste materials, namely, calcium carbide waste (CCW), crumb rubber (CR), and fly ash (FA), in the redevelopment of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC). A comprehensive literature review was undertaken, encompassing several key areas: the properties of SCC, the influence of CCW on concrete workability, setting and strength (compressive, tensile, and flexural), and the characteristics of SCC incorporating crumb rubber. A detailed examination of design methodologies for SCC was conducted, including the Japanese design method, the European guidelines for SCC mixed design approach, and the mixed design according to BS EN 206:2013. Acceptance criteria for SCC set by various institutions were also evaluated, along with the composition and classification of rubber aggregates. Findings from the review suggest that CCW is a viable partial substitute for cement and cementitious materials in SCC. The consistency, along with the initial and final setting times of cement, exhibited an increase with the inclusion of FA and CCW. It is recommended that future studies consider up to a 50% FA content to produce grade 40 High Volume Fly Ash Self-Compacting Concrete (HVFA-SCC) with CCW and crumb rubber. This approach not only advances sustainable building practices but also proposes a novel solution for waste management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".