Characterization and Optimization of Olive Pomace Ash as a Partial Cement Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, calcined and ground olive pomace ash (OPA) was evaluated as a supplementary cementitious material for the development of blended cements.Portland cement (CEM I 42.5) was partially substituted with OPA at replacement levels of 10%, 20%, and 30% by weight, while a reference mix containing 0% of OPA was used for comparison.Experimental investigations, conducted in accordance with Algerian and European cement standards, included chemical, physical, mechanical, and durabilityrelated tests.The results show that OPA incorporation increases the water demand for normal consistency and reduces the workability of standardized mortars.These effects are mainly attributed to the high capacity of OPA particles to absorb water.The setting times were slightly accelerated.Moreover, cements containing 10% of OPA exhibited significant strength gains exceeding 20 MPa between 28 and 60 days, highlighting the beneficial pozzolanic reactivity of the additive, as supported by XRD and FTIR results.This demonstrates the potential use of OPA as a partial cementitious material.
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".