Study of the Circularity of Recycled Concrete Aggregates Subjected to Different Mechanical and Chemical Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete is one of the most popular construction materials, but it is still not considered sustainable. The introduction of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as a substitute for natural aggregate (NA) might make concrete align with the principles of circular economy. Unlike NA, RCA is not a homogeneous material as it is composed of old aggregates and adherent mortar. It is more porous than NA, so it results in lower strength and higher absorption. Several attempts have been made to improve the performance of RCA; however, not all studies prioritize an approach that can be feasible on a large scale. In addition, factors that enhance or decrease the performance of cast concrete mixes include the aggregate gradation, shape, and quantity of fines. The objective of this paper is to assess how the circularity, quantity of fines, roundness, and surface characterization of aggregates changes over time with respect to treatments such as mechanical and chemical treatments that can be extended on a large scale without a strong environmental impact. It was noted that acetic acid results in a superfluous additional element that does not greatly affect the results, since a considerable difference in the circularity, porosity, and fine number of aggregates can be produced by changing the timing and the size of the steel nuts used in the mechanical treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".