ArticleScience progress
Experimental study on properties of green concrete containing wood ash, silica fume, fly ash, and plastic waste.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the use of waste material combinations to produce sustainable concrete. Wood ash (WA), silica fume (SF), and fly ash (FA) were used as partial replacements for cement in normal cement concrete (NCC), self-compacting concrete (SCC), and lightweight self-compacting concrete (LWSCC). Waste plastic aggregates partially replaced fine and coarse aggregates in LWSCC. Twenty mix designs were tested for flowability and mechanical properties. In NCC, 10% SF replacement maximized the compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths. Increasing the FA (0-30%) and WA (0-15%) contents reduced the strength, although the reductions were relatively small and acceptable. In SCC, increasing the WA (0-15%) with 10% SF and 20% FA slightly reduced the strength. Meanwhile, the addition of WA to SCC reduced the flow properties. However, all flow properties met the guidelines developed by the European Federation of National Associations Representing Concrete (EFNARC), and no visible blocking was observed during the flow characteristics test. LWSCC incorporated 25-100% plastic powder, 5% WA, 10% SF, 20% FA, and 30% plastic aggregates. Increasing plastic powder reduced strength, flowability, and density (below 1950 kg/m³); however, all mixes remained within EFNARC limits. This study demonstrates the potential utilization of waste materials in concrete, reducing cement and natural resource consumption and offering significant environmental benefits.
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.