Utilizing Fine Marine Sediment as a Partial Substitute for Sand in Self-Compacting Concrete Specially Designed for Application in Marine Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disposal of marine sediments poses a significant economic and environmental challenge on a global scale. To address this issue and promote resource optimization within a circular-economy paradigm, this research investigates the viability of incorporating untreated fine marine sediments as a partial replacement for sand in self-compacting concrete (SCC) designed especially for application in marine environments (an exposure class of XS2 and a resistance class of C30/37 according to standard NF EN 206). The concretes mis-design incorporating 30% by weight of sediment as a sand substitute was initially designed with the modified Dreux–Gorisse method. The findings indicate that it is feasible to design an SCC suitable for marine environments, incorporating 30% sediment replacement content and without significantly compromising concrete properties, durability, or the estimated lifespan of the formulated concretes. The integration of marine sediment as a sand substitute into the SCC mix design reduces the amount of binder and limestone filler without compromising the paste volume. This results in a significant saving of natural sand resources and a reduction in CO2 emissions for SCC made with marine sediment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".