1. Increase in size of coarse aggregate causes increase in porosity and permeability but decreases the mechanical strengths.
2. Presence of metakaolin strengthens the matrix of pervious concrete thereby enhancing its mechanical properties.
3. Inclusion of metakaolin increased the ultimate load carrying capacity of pervious slabs under static, cyclic and impact loading.
The article “Effect of Metakaolin on the Properties of Pervious Concrete” is a scientific study that examines the effects of metakaolin as a partial replacement for cement in pervious concrete mixes, along with the impact of different aggregate sizes. The article is written by experts in the field and provides detailed information about their research findings, which makes it reliable and trustworthy. However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when evaluating this article.
First, the authors only consider two single-sized coarse aggregates with maximum nominal sizes of 12.5 mm and 20 mm, which may not be representative enough to draw general conclusions about all types of pervious concrete mixes. Additionally, while they do mention that other admixtures such as fly ash, silica fume and blast furnace slag can also be used to strengthen the matrix, they do not explore these options further or compare them to metakaolin in terms of effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.
Second, while the authors provide evidence for their claims regarding how metakaolin improves mechanical properties such as compressive strength, tensile strength and flexural strength, they do not provide any evidence for their claims regarding how it increases ultimate load carrying capacity under static, cyclic and impact loading conditions. Furthermore, they do not explore any potential risks associated with using metakaolin as a partial replacement for cement in pervious concrete mixes or discuss any possible counterarguments to their findings.
Finally, while this article does provide an objective overview of its research findings on how metakaolin affects pervious concrete properties, it does not present both sides equally or explore any alternative solutions that could potentially improve performance even further without increasing costs significantly. Therefore, readers should take into account these potential biases when evaluating this article’s trustworthiness and reliability before drawing any conclusions from its findings.