Study on microstructural and mechanical properties of cementitious materials composed of fly ash and dacite powder
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
The hydration reaction of mass concrete seriously endangers the structural safety. At present, the concrete production relies excessively on fly ash due to hydration reaction. In view of the problem that the demand of fly ash exceeds the supply, this paper proposes to use dacite powder to partially replace fly ash as the raw material for preparing cementitious materials. Through comprehensive tests and microstructure tests, various properties of dacite powder and fly ash composite cementitious materials are studied. The results show that: 1. The dacite powder with a specific surface area of 650 m 2 /kg, a fineness of 15% under laser particle size and a ball-milling time of 1.0 h has the best performance. 2. It is advisable to mix dacite powder and fly ash. The total amount of dacite powder should not exceed 30% of the cementitious material. It has the best performance when the amount of dacite powder and fly ash is the same. 3. The alkali activity of aggregate can hardly be inhibited by mixing dacite powder alone. The recommended measures to inhibit the alkali activity of aggregate are: i) mixing more than 20% fly ash alone. ii) mixed with 25% dacite powder and more than 15% fly ash.
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