Using Stone Sawdust Waste as Supplementary Cementitious Material: Northeast Brazilian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the potential of ornamental stone sawing residues—specifically high-density limestone (HDLSW) and granite (GSW)—as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The residues were collected in Northeastern Brazil and subjected to mineralogical characterization (XRD), chemical composition analysis (XRF), and particle size distribution (laser diffraction). Results indicate that HDLSR has a high CaO content (91.55%), while GSR contains a combined total of SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 of 86.27%, both meeting the criteria for SCM utilization. Particle size analyses showed that both residues have suitable average particle sizes (D50 between 11.59 µm and 20.71 µm), favoring the nucleation effect and contributing to the development of early-age compressive strength. Cement pastes with 5%, 10%, and 15% replacement levels of Portland cement by HDLSR and GSR were tested for consistency and compressive strength up to 91 days. The results demonstrated that the incorporation of these residues did not significantly alter the workability of the pastes and, in some cases, led to mechanical strength gains, even in the absence of significant pozzolanic activity—especially when used in ternary blends. The use of these residues helps reduce Portland cement consumption and CO₂ emissions, promoting the reuse of by-products from the ornamental stone industry. This approach aligns with the principles of sustainable construction and circular economy by offering a viable, eco-efficient alternative for partial cement replacement in cementitious materials.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".