MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415163385 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2025-0243

Influence of manufactured sand on concrete properties: a review

2025· review· en· W4415163385 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Barbara Asantewaa Aboagye, Ryan Gosselin, William Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrusherGradationDurabilitySuperplasticizerCompressive strengthAggregate (composite)Slump

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural sand over-exploitation has led to the need for alternative fine aggregates in concrete production. Manufactured sand, by-products obtained from crushing coarse aggregates, is a promising alternative. This review synthesizes findings up to 2024 to evaluate its effect on concrete properties. Concrete performance was found to be significantly influenced by crusher type, particle morphology, and fines content. Vertical shaft impact crushers typically produce manufactured sand having better gradation and shape thus improved packing density and compressive strength in concrete. The increased angularity and fines content however reduce workability, requiring higher superplasticizer dosages. Incorporating 5%–15% fines, especially around 10%, enhances durability and strength, while optimal natural sand replacement lies between 30% and 50%. Majority of mixture designs are tailored for self-compacting concrete and ultra-high-performance concrete. There is a need for more standards considering manufactured sand as fine aggregates and conventional concrete mix designs accounting for the unique properties of manufactured sand to promote its mass adoption and usage.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207