Strength Development of Alkali-Activated Mortar with GGBS and Fly Ash Binder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the impact of curing in different environments, air and water, on the strength development of mortar with alkali-activated binder consisting of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash.A combination of commercial sodium silicate solution (waterglass) and sodium hydroxide were used to activate the binder.The strength development was assessed including the effect of variation in NaOH activator concentration from 10 mol/L to 16 mol/L.The effect of binder composition was evaluated considering two combinations, a GGBS:fly ash ratio of 1:1 and GGBS:fly ash ratio of 3:1.Samples were tested in compression after 7, 28, and 90 days of curing.Compression tests showed that samples cured in water gain strength continuously from 7 to 90 days, irrespective of NaOH concentration and for both binder combinations.However, samples with NaOH concentration from 10 mol/L to 14 mol/L that were cured in air gained strength at the age of 28 days compared to 7 days but decreased in strength at the age of 90 days.This indicates water curing ensures continuity of the geopolymerization reaction and the development of C-A-S-H and N-A-S-H that contribute the strength development.However, air-cured samples lost strength at the age of 90 days, possibly due to the time-dependent loss of moisture leaving unreacted activator deposits.However, at NaOH concentration of 16 mol/L, air-cured samples continued to gain strength until the age of 90 days, likely due to the higher alkalinity of the solution that increases the concentration of ions and binds water more tightly.In addition, higher activator concentration accelerates the reaction and develops more products which binds water chemically and physically.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".