Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38591483›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Utilization of Recycled Brick Powder as Supplementary Cementitious Materials-A Comprehensive Review.

Özlem Sallı Bideci, Alper Bideci, Ashraf Ashour

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Özlem Sallı BideciFaculty of Art, Design and Architecture, University of Düzce, Düzce 81600, Türkiye.
Alper BideciFaculty of Art, Design and Architecture, University of Düzce, Düzce 81600, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-2385-7552
Ashraf AshourFaculty of Engineering and Digital Technologies, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4800-6060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, extensive research has been conducted to explore alternative supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in order to address the environmental concerns associated with the cement industry. Bricks, which are frequently preferred in the construction sector, generate a lot of waste during the production and demolition of existing buildings, requiring environmentally sustainable recycling practices. Therefore, many studies have been carried out in recent years on the use of brick waste as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in cement mortar and concrete production. This critical review evaluates the impact of waste brick powder (WBP) on the mechanical and durability properties of mortar and concrete when used as a partial replacement for cement. It was observed that the properties of WBP-blended cement mortar or concrete depend on several factors, including WBP particle size, replacement ratio, pozzolanic activity, and mineralogical structure. The findings indicate that WBP with a particle size range of 100 µm to 25 µm, with a maximum cement replacement level of 10-20%, exhibits a positive impact on the compressive strength of both mortars and concretes. However, it is crucial to emphasize that a minimum curing duration of 28 days is imperative to facilitate the development of a pozzolanic reaction. This temporal requirement plays a vital role in realizing the optimal benefits of utilizing waste brick powder as a supplementary cementitious material in mortars and concretes.

Indexed as

particle sizepozzolanic activitysupplementary cementitious material (SCM)waste brick powder (WBP)waste management

Identifiers

PMID38591483
PMCPMC11154419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.