Nonferrous waste foundry sand and milling fly ash as alternative low mechanical strength materials for construction industry: effect on mortars at early ages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alternative solution to reduce environmental pollution using aluminum waste foundry sand (AWFS) and fly ash (FA) to produce sustainable construction materials was studied. New mortars were prepared by partially replacing ordinary Portland cement with fly ash at 5, 10 and 15 % mass. and a total replace of Ottawa sand (OS) with AWFS. The specimens were cured at 25°C with a 100% relative humidity. The mechanical behavior was evaluated by compression test at the ages of 7, 14 and 28 days. The microstructural characteristics were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results indicate that the addition of milling fly ash in AWFS mortars increases the mechanical resistance, mostly at 5% mass reaching the maximum value of 10 MPa at 28 days of age. Microstructurally, it was found a porous cement matrix with some cracking caused by the reaction of portland cement with the metallic aluminum remaining in the waste sand, which is correlated to the low mechanical resistance obtained. \nThe final mechanical characteristic makes this new product a serious candidate to be used as a sustainable building material working at low load.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".