MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390112387 · doi:10.3390/app14010108

Concrete with Organic Waste Materials as Aggregate Replacement

2023· article· en· W4390112387 on OpenAlexaff
N Bertoldo, Tanvir Qureshi, D.R. Simpkins, Alessandro Arrigoni, Giovanni Dotelli

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuskWaste managementCompressive strengthSlumpEnvironmental sciencePortland cementAggregate (composite)CorncobCementFlexural strengthStrawBiodegradable wasteProperties of concreteMaterials scienceComposite materialRaw materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The disposal of high volumes of organic waste is a global issue. Using organic waste instead of sand as an aggregate material for concrete could reduce the strain on waste treatment processes and on the extraction of finite resources. At the same time, it could be a climate change mitigation strategy, by storing the biogenic carbon contained in the organic waste. This project investigated the viability of replacing 10% of fine aggregate in concrete with various organic waste materials, namely rice husk ash, wood ash, corncob granules, and wheat straw. The fresh concrete’s properties were studied using the slump test, and the hardened concrete’s mechanical properties were measured using the compressive strength and flexural strength tests. In this study, 14 days of curing were considered for the mechanical tests, although the 28-day mechanical strength is more generally accepted. The mechanical performances along with a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparison between the concrete with organic waste and traditional concrete were conducted. The results suggested that rice husk ash and wood ash are the most-suitable organic waste products for use as aggregate replacers considering the mechanical properties. The concrete samples incorporating wheat straw and corncob granules exhibited relatively low strength; unless advanced treatment methods are applied to enhance the concrete’s performance, the utilization of these organic wastes in concrete may be limited. The environmental impact assessment of traditional concrete shows that the main contributor to almost every impact category is the production of Portland cement. Sand production contributes only marginally to the overall impact of the concrete. In terms of life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traditional concrete exhibits the lowest GWP impact per cubic meter when mechanical properties are included in the functional unit used for the comparison. Nevertheless, concrete samples with wood ash and rice husk ash partially offset their lower compressive strength with higher carbon sequestration, showing a similar GWP impact to traditional concrete. This makes them promising alternatives, especially for cases where limited compressive strengths are needed. Further investigations to improve their mechanical properties and optimize their performance are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207