ArticleScience progress
Mechanical properties, sorption characteristics, and microstructure of Portland cement concrete containing sulfate-resistant mineral admixture and sugarcane bagasse ash.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of sulfate-resistant mineral admixture (SP2) and untreated sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) as a partial substitute for cement on the physico-mechanical properties and microstructure of Portland cement concrete. Four concrete mixtures were prepared for the investigation including a control mixture, SP2 mixture (4.7% SP2), SCBA mixture (5% SCBA), and SP2-SCBA mixture (4.7% SP2 and 5% SCBA). The SP2 mixture exhibited superior performance across all assessed engineering properties in comparison to the other mixtures. Moreover, a comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of untreated SCBA used in this study versus processed SCBA from recent research. Remarkably, untreated SCBA, despite having minimal impact on compressive strength, it demonstrated notable improvements in tensile strength. When combined with 4.7% SP2, the untreated SCBA mixture achieved a remarkable 37.9% increase in splitting tensile strength compared to the control mixture, outperforming similar mixtures using processed SCBA and silica fume in previous studies. Microstructure analysis revealed a large amount of spongy, fibrous hydrated structures in both the SCBA and SP2-SCBA mixtures. These structures provide a rational explanation to the increase in splitting tensile strength of the concrete containing SCBA. The findings highlight the tradeoff between using untreated SCBA and treated SCBA as sustainable cement replacements. Although untreated SCBA can only be used at a low replacement level, it offers unique engineering benefits alongside significant energy savings.
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.