Suitability of lagoon fly ash for use in alkali-activated binder mortar mixes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of lagoon fly ash (LFA) was investigated as a precursor for alkali-activated/geopolymer concretes. The chemical composition, particle size distribution, mineralogy and morphology of LFA obtained from Kilroot power station (KLFA) were evaluated and compared with those of silo-stored FA from the same site (KFA). Geopolymer mortar mixes made with KLFA and KFA were compared. To determine the variability in the chemical composition of the KLFA, samples were taken from different locations during a ‘geological’ survey of the Kilroot power station’s lagoon in Northern Ireland. The samples of KLFA and KFA had similar chemical composition, minerology and particle size distribution. However, large agglomerated particles (lumps) of FA were found in the KLFA. The strengths of the mortar mixes made with KLFA, in the processed (dried and milled) and unprocessed states, were comparable to those of the silo fly ash (KFA) mixes. Most KLFA samples collected during the survey had a lower content of silicon and/or higher loss on ignition than the KFA, which would potentially adversely affect properties of concrete, if used as a partial replacement for Portland cement. KLFA is, however, suitable to use as a precursor for alkali-activated binders with little (e.g. screening/sieving through a 2 mm sieve) or no processing prior its use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".