Biochar and recycled gypsum drywall in concrete: role and effects on compressive behavior, microstructure, and carbon footprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the effect of biochar and recycled gypsum drywall (RGD) on the mechanical properties and microstructure of conventional and high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFC) by testing 60 cylinders. Results suggested that although adding biochar increased the porosity of concrete, its effect on concrete’s properties relied on its porosity, pore interconnectivity, and water retention capacity, plus characteristics of binders. The biochar-retained water (BRW) accelerated the hydration of C3S, increasing the dosage of calcium carbonate and calcium aluminate silicate hydrate on the top of biochar pores. The accelerated hydration enhanced early-age strength. Besides the hydration acceleration of OPC, BRW primarily promoted the RGD reactions and fly ash activation in HVFC. Nonetheless, the high porosity, inertness, and potential deterioration of biochar weakened the concrete in the long term and lowered its elastic modulus. Biochar also boosted ductile behavior, especially in HVFC with RGD, and lowered the carbon footprint of the concrete.
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) | 0.001 | 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".