Incorporating coarse and fine recycled aggregates into concrete mixes: mechanical characterization and environmental impact
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
Abstract Concrete waste (CW) recycling stands as a promising strategy to promote sustainable construction practices. This research aims to assess the feasibility of using recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) as a surrogate for natural aggregates (NA) in concrete applications and reduce the environmental impact associated with the depletion of natural resources and landfill space. To achieve these objectives, CW was segregated from debris mixes of construction and demolition waste (CDW), collected, crushed, and graded to generate RCA. Thirty-two concrete samples were prepared and categorized into four distinct groups with 0% (reference), 50%, 75%, and 100% substitution levels for both coarse RCA (CRCA) and fine RCA (FRCA), all utilized simultaneously. Concurrently, the environmental impacts of producing 1 m 3 of concrete were evaluated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, (cradle-to-gate) covering three phases, the raw material supply (A1), transportation (A2) and concrete production (A3). At the 50% replacement level, the mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) demonstrated a 20.0% increase in splitting tensile strength, accompanied by marginal decrease in workability (15.0%) and compressive strength (6.0%). In addition, at that percentage, the average environmental effects were reduced by 31.3%, with specific reductions of 34.7% for A1, 40.3% for A2, and no change in A3.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it