Post-fire thermal and mechanical performance of CDW-based plain and fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites incorporating different recycled aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geopolymer composites (GPCs) based on construction and demolition waste (CDW) have demonstrated significant potential as a sustainable solution for structural applications. However, despite existing research on the technical properties of CDW-GPCs, their post-fire performance remains largely unexplored. This study investigates the fire resistance of CDW-based GPCs formulated with a binder containing 70 % CDW while exploring the effects of various CDW aggregates, including recycled brick (RBA), ceramic-tile (RTA), concrete (RCA), and conventional silica sand (SSA). The effects of supplementary cementitious materials, such as ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin (MK) and class C fly ash (FA-C), alongside polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers, were also considered in fiber-reinforced GPCs (FRGPCs). GPC and FRGPC samples were exposed to temperatures ranging from 23 °C to 800 °C and assessed for residual compressive and flexural strengths, load-deflection behavior, energy absorption, ultrasonic pulse velocity, mass loss, and spalling resistance. Although all mixtures exhibited thermal degradation beyond 400 °C, the use of PVA fibers significantly improved residual strengths and flexural performance. Interestingly, RCA-based GPCs and FRGPCs showed comparable thermal resistance to SSA, outperforming RBA- and RTA-mixtures. Furthermore, the inclusion of GGBS in CDW-binders demonstrated superior fire resistance relative to MK and FA-C formulations, proving a denser microstructure and stable C-A-S-H phase formations after exposure to temperatures up to 800 o C. The retention of key microstructural features confirmed the viability of CDW-based GP composites as fire-resistant construction materials. • No spalling was observed up to 800 °C, PVA and GGBS improved crack control and surface integrity. • GGBS-based composites showed superior thermal stability than their MK, FA-C-based counterparts. • RCA-based composites outperformed SSA, RTA, and RBA in post-fire stability due to improved aggregate-matrix compatibility. • FRGPCs showed improved ductility and stiffness, retaining higher values than GPCs at 800 °C. • GGBS-SSA and RCA-based composites had denser matrices, though RBA-composite showed highest porosity and degradation.
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".