MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396955874 · doi:10.1061/jmcee7.mteng-16962

Recycling Waste Gypsum Drywalls as Partial Cement Replacement in Concrete Exposed to Different Environmental Conditions

2024· article· en· W4396955874 on OpenAlexaff
Kasra Takbiri, Pedram Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementGypsumWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recycled gypsum powder from waste drywalls is a new alternative that has been recently introduced for partial cement replacement in concrete for construction applications. It has been shown that the recycled gypsum, alongside fly ash, can partially replace cement in concrete to some extent without hurting the required properties of concrete. In this paper, the impact of recycled gypsum content on the durability of concrete (hereafter called gypsum concrete) exposed to different environmental exposures is evaluated. A total of 153 concrete cylinders (100×200 mm) with different recycled gypsum contents (0%, 10%, and 20% of cement replacement) were considered. Each mix was exposed to air-dry, freshwater, seawater, freshwater–air dry cyclic, and seawater–air dry cyclic conditions. The specimens were tested in compression loading after 1,000, 3,000, and 6,000 h of exposure. Recycled gypsum used in this research was in two types of a powder with fine particles only (hereafter called fine gypsum) and in the form of mixed fine, coarse, and paper particles (hereafter called whole gypsum). Other mechanical and physical properties of concrete such as absorption, volume change, and ultrasonic pulse velocity were analyzed. It was observed that the compressive strength of the specimens with 10% and 20% fine gypsum content at Day 28 was about 36% and 40% lower than that of the control specimens, respectively. However, the strength gap was reduced to about 16% and 7% at the end of 6,000 h in the air-dry condition. The specimens submerged in freshwater and seawater showed a rate of strength gain higher than that of the control specimens, bringing the compressive strength of the gypsum concrete specimens slightly higher than that of the control specimens after 6,000 h exposure. Overall, recycled gypsum in combination with fly ash not only does not hurt the long-term strength of concrete but also can enhance the strength under certain conditions, mostly those exposures involving water exposure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207