Evaluation of Portland-Limestone Cement Concretes Containing High Volume of Fly Ash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a global initiative aimed at reducing the impact of humans on the environment of which the concrete industry is a large part. In order to achieve this, current focus is being placed on the use of portland-limestone cements. U.S. standards currently allow for a replacement of portland cement clinker up to 10% and an increase to 15% is being considered. Canadian standards currently allow the use of 15% limestone and Europe the maximum allowed is 35%. This research compares the performance of concrete produced using portland-limestone cement with Type I/II portland cement. Additionally, high volumes of fly ash were incorporated in order to determine its effect on concretes made with portland-limestone cement. Six concrete mixtures were designed: one control mixture using Type I/II portland cement with a companion mixture incorporating portland-limestone cement, and four mixtures replacing portland-limestone cement with 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% Class F fly ash. Testing of the fresh and hardened properties was conducted including slump, air content, unit weight, compressive strength, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, and permeability. Both concretes containing 100% Type I/II cement and portland-limestone cement (PLC) performed similarly. Acceptable strengths at 56 days of age were found in mixtures with up to 50% portland-limestone cement replacement with strengths substantially decreasing at 60% fly ash. Permeability was found to decrease with increasing percentages of fly ash indicating that the use of High Volume Fly Ash (HVFA) in PLC concretes resulted in concrete mixtures that were more durable than the concrete mixtures containing no fly ash.
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 | 0.025 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".