ArticleScientific reports2024
Mechanical properties and microscopic mechanism of solid waste based binder solidified stone waste.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Steel Slag Content on the Performance and Hydration Mechanism of Phosphogypsum-Steel Slag-Fly Ash All-Solid-Waste Binders.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The stone waste generated by stone industry occupy land resources, cause safety hazards and need to be efficiently resourcefully utilized. In this study, the CGF solid waste based binder (abbreviated as CGF) with calcium carbide residue (CCR), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), and fly ash (FA) as components was developed to solidify the stone waste. Through "treating waste with waste", the resource utilization of solid waste was realized. The mechanical properties and reaction mechanism of CGF solidified stone waste were investigated through unconfined compressive strength (UCS), XRD, and SEM-EDS tests. The results show that CGF has the better solidify effect on stone waste, and its strength meets the requirements of the road base material standards. Compared to cement, the CGF solidified stone waste existed higher UCS at both 7 and 28 d of curing. The UCS of CGF solidified stone waste reaches 2.93 and 4.42 MPa under curing of 7 and 28 d at 5% binder content, which is 1.61 and 1.37 times higher that of P.O. 42.5 cement. Furthermore, the primary mineral-based stone wastes will not react with the binder, and the CGF generates gelling products such as C-S-H C-A-H, and C-A-S-H through alkali-activated reactions between the components of CGF. These gelling products enhance the UCS of solidified stone wastes through cementing and filling effects. The findings provide a feasible approach with low-carbon emission and low-cost for resourceful utilization of stone wastes.
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.