Assessment of Workability, Compressive Strength, and Tensile Strength of Fly Ash-Glass Waste Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete with Recycled Steel Can Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete plays a vital role in civil engineering and infrastructure development.As the focus shifts toward sustainable practices, innovative approaches such as geopolymer concrete and glass waste as aggregates have emerged, improving both the environmental impact of concrete and its mechanical properties.Fiber reinforcement, especially with recycled materials, is gaining attention to enhance the sustainability of concrete, with commercial storage materials such as steel cans becoming viable materials to be used in reinforcement.This study examined the workability, compressive strength, and tensile strength of fly ash-glass waste fiberreinforced geopolymer concrete (FRGC) using recycled steel can fibers.Samples were produced by crushing soda-lime glass bottles and cutting steel cans into hook-end fibers, with an M20 concrete mix formulated by substituting 30% cement with fly ash and 30% coarse aggregates with glass waste.Recycled steel can fibers were added at varying percentages (0-5% by weight of cement).Results showed a decrease in workability as recycled fibers were added.While compressive strength also decreased, the reduction was insignificant at 4% fiber content.Adding fibers improved tensile performance in terms of tensile strength, though it remained insignificantly different from the control group.Notably, samples of concrete containing recycled steel can fibers exhibited ductile failure and fiber bridging.Overall, the fly ash-glass waste FRGC with 4% recycled steel can fiber demonstrated favorable outcomes in compressive and tensile strengths.This study highlights the potential of using recycled steel cans to enhance concrete sustainability.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".