Assessing the Suitability of Phosphate Waste Rock as a Construction Aggregate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphate waste rock (PWR) is gaining attention as a potential alternative aggregate for concrete. Its valorization could reduce the environmental impacts of quarrying natural resources and stockpiling phosphate mining waste. This study comprehensively investigated the properties of fine and coarse aggregates produced from three rock types selected from PWR in Morocco: Flint, Phosflint, and Dolomite. A range of techniques was used to study their characteristics, including microstructural observations up to the microscale and X-ray computed tomography (X-CT), mineralogical and chemical compositions, physical and geotechnical properties such as Los Angeles (LA), micro-Deval (MDE), flexural strength, real dry density, and total porosity. The results showed that the coarse fractions of Flint, Phosflint, and Dolomite are code A or B of NF P 18-545 and exhibit good shape, density, and water absorption properties. Flint aggregates had the highest wear and fragmentation resistance with the lowest and finest porosity. They contained mainly quartz but also small proportions of Dolomite and fluorapatite. Phosflint aggregates had high resistance, shown by code A in LA and MDE values, and flexural strength equal to 17.1 MPa. They contained phosphate microfacies with a Ca/P atomic ratio equal to 1.8, cemented by cryptocrystalline silica. Dolomite aggregates’ mineralogical make-up consisted mainly of dolomite with the presence of quartz particles in addition to impurities. They also displayed significant total porosity (10–12%), as confirmed by X-CT. These findings were discussed to develop insights for the use of three types of PWR as alternative aggregates for concrete production. This investigation contributes to unveiling the properties of PWR as concrete aggregates and encourages circularity between the mining and construction sectors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".