MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404711209 · doi:10.3390/min14121204

Potential Reuse of Ladle Furnace Slag as Cementitious Material: A Literature Review of Generation, Characterization, and Processing Methods

2024· review· en· W4404711209 on OpenAlexaff
Noureddine Ouffa, Mostafa Benzaazoua, Romain Trauchessec, Tikou Belem, Yassine Taha, Cécile Diliberto

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlag (welding)ReuseLadleCementitiousWaste managementEnvironmental scienceCharacterization (materials science)MetallurgyMaterials scienceEngineeringCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ladle furnace slag (LFS), a by-product of steel refining, shows a promising reuse pathway as an alternative additive or substitute for Portland cement due to its high alkalinity and similar chemical composition to clinkers. However, LFS is often stored in large, open surface areas, leading to many environmental issues. To tackle waste management challenges, LFS can be recycled as supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in many cementitious composites. However, LFS contains some mineral phases that hinder its reactivity (dicalcium silicate (γ-C2S)) and pose long-term durability issues in the cured cemented final product (free lime (f-CaO) and free magnesia (f-MgO)). Therefore, LFS needs to be adequately treated to enhance its reactivity and ensure long-term durability in the structures of the cementitious materials. This literature review assesses possible LFS treatments to enhance its suitability for valorization. Traditional reviews are often multidisciplinary and explore all types of iron and steel slags, sometimes including the recycling of LFS in the steel industry. As the reuse of industrial by-products requires a knowledge of their characteristics, this paper focuses first on LFS characterization, then on the obstacles to its use, and finally compiles an exhaustive inventory of previously investigated treatments. The main parameters for treatment evaluation are the mineralogical composition of treated LFS and the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the final geo-composite in the short and long term. This review indicates that the treatment of LFS using rapid air/water quenching at the end-of-refining process is most appropriate, allowing a nearly amorphous slag to be obtained, which is therefore suitable for use as a SCM. Moreover, the open-air watering treatment leads to an optimal content of treated LFS. Recycling LFS in this manner can reduce OPC consumption, solve the problem of limited availability of blast furnace slag (GGBFS) by partially replacing this material, conserve natural resources, and reduce the carbon footprint of cementitious material operations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207