MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400235025 · doi:10.11159/iccste24.171

Life Cycle Analysis of Light Weight Artificial Aggregates for Sustainable Construction

2024· article· en· W4400235025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Narinder Singh, Jehangeer Raza

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA) of granules derived from fly ash, marble sludge, and cement in various proportions, with the aim of evaluating their viability as a sustainable resource in the construction activities.The investigation delves into the environmental and economic implications of incorporating artificial granules into construction materials, examining their entire life cycle from production to disposal.Encompassing extraction of resources, building, transporting, manufacturing procedures, and end-of-life circumstances, the analysis sheds light on key factors such as energy consumption and resource depletion.In recent years, the construction sector has increasingly embraced recycled materials, with lightweight artificial aggregates emerging as a promising alternative to traditional concretes.This study introduces a selection model for lightweight artificial aggregates through experimental processes, considering economical, ecological, and technological elements.Three distinct mixtures, incorporating cement and industrial waste such as fly ash from a municipal waste incineration plant and marble sludge, were prepared.With a consistent 75% fly ash inclusion, varying percentages of marble sludge (10%, 15%, 20%) and cement (15%, 10%, 5%) were employed.This approach facilitated a comprehensive evaluation of the economical, ecological, and mechanical features of every lightweight artificial aggregate blend.The paper identifies preferred scenarios among the three mixtures, aiming for convergence and compliance in terms of environmental impacts (assessed through Life Cycle Assessment), economic considerations (assessed utilizing Life Cycle Costing), and technical-functional aspects.The findings underscore that the optimal solution for sustainable lightweight artificial aggregates involves a composition of 75% fly ash, 15% marble sludge, and a higher cement content of 10%.This outcome emphasizes the practicality of making environmentally conscious choices in selecting lightweight artificial aggregates for construction applications, aligning with the industry's shift towards sustainability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207