MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413697197 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2025-0114

Balancing sustainability and strength in concrete: the combined effects of recycled aggregates, silica fume, and nylon fibers

2025· article· en· W4413697197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bin Li, Di Wu, Jianbao Xing, Wengang Zhang, Syed Tafheem Abbas Gillani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilica fumeMaterials scienceComposite materialCompressive strengthWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete, widely used in construction, is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion due to its reliance on cement and NCA. This study evaluates the combined effects of fully replacing NCA with RCA, partially substituting cement with SF, and incorporating NWF on concrete’s engineering performance, durability, and environmental footprint. A three-way ANOVA confirmed highly significant main effects of RCA, SF, and NWF on CS ( p < 10 − 9 ) and STS ( p < 10 − 8 ); 100% RCA reduces mean CS from 76 to 61 MPa, while the synergistic addition of 10% SF and 0.25% NWF recovers 9 MPa of strength. Durability tests reveal that 100% RCA increases water absorption by 25%, but that SF–NWF combinations reduce this penalty by up to 0.48%. CIP doubles under RCA (13–26 mm) yet decreases by 7 mm with SF–NWF synergy, and sulfuric-acid mass loss rises by 3% with RCA but is lowered by 0.6% when additives are applied. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment using SimaPro 9.5.0.2 with Ecoinvent 3.10 and the TRACI method shows RCA alone reduces ODP by 18%, GWP by 6.6%, ACP by 8%, and EP by 10%; coupling with 10% SF and 0.1% NWF amplifies these reductions to 25%, 15.7%, 13%, and 16.5%, respectively. Heatmap and sensitivity analyses consistently identify 10SF-100RCA, 10SF0.1N100RCA, and 10SF0.25N100RCA as optimal mixes for balanced performance and 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.162 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207