MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077047280 · doi:10.1016/j.pes.2025.100122

Performance assessment of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete pipes and its comparison with cement reinforced concrete pipes

2025· article· en· W7077047280 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Engineering Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersHigher Education Commission, Pakistan
KeywordsCompressive strengthPrecast concreteCementFlexural strengthFly ashCastingPortland cementCore (optical fiber)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of precast concrete pipes for water and sewage transportation systems is an important asset for maintaining a healthy and sustainable environment. This study aimed to investigate the mechanical performance of full-scale sustainable cementless geopolymer concrete pipes (GPC1) and compare them with conventional reinforced cement concrete pipes (RC1) and cementless geopolymer concrete pipes incorporating 50 kg/m 3 of steel fibers (GPC1-SF) using non-destructive and destructive techniques. In cementless concrete mixtures, fly ash used as a binder, procured from a local power plant and steel fibers were locally made by cutting the long steel wires. Initially, a rebound hammer test was performed on all the casted pipes (RC1, GPC1 and GPC1-SF) on the inside and outside of the pipe’s wall. Afterwards, cores were retrieved from all pipes and ultrasonic pulse velocity, core compressive strength, volume of permeable voids and sorptivity tests were conducted. Moreover, a three-edge bearing test was also conducted to evaluate the flexural performance of full-scale pipes. No issues were encountered in the casting process of pipes using the spun-cast methodology for incorporating the steel fibers and fly ash in cementless concrete pipes, indicating the adequacy of the already available precast unit for casting fiber-reinforced cementless concrete pipes. Results showed that the outer wall of tested pipes exhibited higher compressive strength than the inner walls, with a maximum outer to inner wall compressive strength ratio of 1.24. The core compressive strength was higher than 30 MPa for all the tested cores. The rebound hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity and core compressive strength results of tested pipes can be correlated with each other. Under three-edge bearing, the GPC1-SF pipe showed D-load at 0.30 mm crack width and at an ultimate load of around 83 kN/m/m and 125 kN/m/m respectively, higher than the RC1 and GPC1 pipes, indicating improved structural performance. The overall cost of GPC pipes was comparable to conventional cement concrete pipes. This demonstrated GPC pipes as a sustainable option for reducing the carbon footprint due to the huge consumption of cement in sewer networks, making it an economically feasible option, supporting the accomplishment of Sustainable Development Goals (6, 9, and 11) by endorsing sustainable robust infrastructure and generating environmentally friendly municipal solutions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Engineering ScienceSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207