Low-carbon gypsum-modified concrete with 80 % cement reduction and strength restoration by confinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recycled gypsum powder from waste drywalls, combined with fly ash, provides a sustainable alternative for partial cement replacement in low-carbon concrete. This study aims an ambitious 80 % reduction in cement content, targeting both the mitigation of environmental impacts from cement production and the diversion of drywall waste through the use of recycled gypsum. The study established the optimal proportions of recycled gypsum and fly ash. Recycled gypsum was incorporated at 20 % and 40 %, with fly ash replacing 30 % and 50 % of binder weight, resulting in a significantly reduced cement content of only 21 % of the binder. The concrete achieved compressive strengths of 9.3 MPa and 15.6 MPa after 28 and 90 days, respectively. The second objective of the study is to demonstrate that the reduced strength of such ultra-low-cement concrete can be effectively restored through confinement in fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tubes, enabling its use in structural applications. Structural performance was evaluated using six CFFTs with ±55° glass-FRP (GFRP) tubes, with four subjected to monotonic loading and two to cyclic loading. The synergistic effect of confinement enhanced the compressive strength of the low-carbon concrete core by a factor of 2.1–4.8 in monotonic tests and 2.1–2.5 in cyclic load tests. These findings indicate significant potential for low-carbon, gypsum-modified concrete in eco-friendly, large-scale infrastructure applications.
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".