ArticleScientific reports2024
Mix proportion and microscopic characterization of coal-based solid waste backfill material based on response surface methodology and multi-objective decision-making.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Response Surface-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation-Based Inverse Mix Design and Strength Mechanisms of Waste Rock-Unclassified Tailings Cemented Backfill.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of mass concentration and curing age on the mechanical properties and damage evolution of aeolian sand backfill.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Multi-scale influence mechanism of fine coal gangue on the mechanical properties of concrete.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Uniaxial compressive strength of cemented coal gangue backfill based on response surface methodology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Rock physics-based approach to assess the effectiveness of cement-based backfill materials in coal mining.PloS one · 2025Article
- Enhancing infectious disease prediction model selection with multi-objective optimization: an empirical study.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The mix proportion of multi-source coal-based solid waste (CSW) for underground backfilling affects transportation and support performance of backfill materials, and even the backfilling cost. In this study, the optimal mix proportion of desulfurization gypsum (DG), furnace bottom slag (FBS) and gasification fine slag (GFS) is determined by the Response Surface Methodology-Box Behnken Design (RSM-BBD). Then the fluidity, bleeding rate, 3-day strength, 7-day strength and preparation cost are evaluation indicators, the optimal mix proportion of backfill materials is determined by the multi-objective decision-making method (MDM). Finally, the microstructure of the backfill material with optimal mix proportion was studied by TGA, MIP, SEM-EDS and XRD. The results show that the mix proportion of CSW with the optimal comprehensive index is coal gangue (CG): coal fly ash (CFA): DG: FBS: GFS = 1:1.5:0.2:0.1:0.1, the mass concentration is 78%, and ordinary Portland cement (OPC)/CSW = 7.5%. The weight loss phenomenon of the backfill material with the optimal mix proportion occurs continuously during the heating process, mainly due to the evaporation of crystal water, structural water and hydroxyl water. There are dense narrow-necked pores in the backfill material, and the pore connectivity is poor. There is no hydration reaction occurs between CSW particles, and the strength increase of the backfill material mainly depends on the hydration reaction of cement. In ettringite, part of Al
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.