ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of Woody Biomass Fly Ash and Class F Fly Ash as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Mortar.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alkali-Activated Granulated Aggregates from Low-Quality Fly Ash and Basalt Dust: Effect of Sodium Silicate/NaOH Activator Chemistry and Accelerated Carbonation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wood biomass ash as a clinker substitute in advancing next-generation blended cement: Croatian case study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Influence of Low-Emission Mineral Additives as a Substitute for CEM II and CEM III Cement on the Properties of Cement Mortars.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Study on carbonation behavior and carbon footprint of steel slag-calcium carbide slag-desulfurization gypsum composite system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Influence of Mineral Additives on Strength Properties of Standard Mortar.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
Abstract
Biomass fly ash is a sustainable, eco-friendly cement substitute with economic and performance benefits, being renewable compared to coal fly ash. This study examines using biomass fly ash (BFA) as a sustainable cement substitute, comparing it with Class F fly ash (CFA). With a water-binder ratio of 0.5 and replacement rates of 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% (by mass), the research highlights BFA's promising applications. BFA and CFA were mixed into cement paste/mortar to analyze their reactivity and properties, with hydration products CH and C-S-H evaluated at 7, 28, and 91 days. Compressive strength, micro-pore structure, and drying shrinkage (assessed from 7 to 182 days) were tested. Results showed BFA had similar pozzolanic reactions to CFA at later stages. While compressive strength decreased with higher BFA replacement rates, early-stage performance matched CFA; growth was CFA-10 (18 MPa) and BFA-10 (17.6 MPa). BFA mortars exhibited slightly better deformation properties. BFA-30 cement had superior performance, with a lower drying shrinkage rate of 65.7% from 14 to 56 days compared to CFA-10's 73.4% and a more stable shrinkage growth rate decrease to 8.4% versus CFA-10's 6.4% after 56 days. This study concluded that BFA, usable without preprocessing, performed best at a 10-15% replacement rate.
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.