Comparative study of mechanical performance and durability of concrete incorporating supplementary cementitious materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates different supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) as partial substitution for Portland limestone cement in concrete. Five natural pozzolans (two grades of metakaolin, diatomaceous earth, wollastonite, and pumice) and three industrial by-products/wastes (recycled glass powder, Class F fly ash, and reclaimed fly ash) were tested for their chemical reactivity. Those that were classified as reactive were incorporated into concrete at 10, 20, or 40 wt.% of cement. According to results, concretes containing natural pozzolans required significantly higher contents of both superplasticizer and air-entraining admixture, while those with other SCMs required increases only in the air-entraining admixture. The natural pozzolans provided superior compressive strength and durability. The recycled glass powder did not perform as well as the natural pozzolans, however, provided better strength and durability than the fly ashes. The results highlight advantages of performance-based design when using alternative SCMs, especially with the scarcity and increasing price of conventional ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".