ArticleScientific reports2025
Uniaxial compressive strength of cemented coal gangue backfill based on response surface methodology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response Surface-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation-Based Inverse Mix Design and Strength Mechanisms of Waste Rock-Unclassified Tailings Cemented Backfill.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of Aggregate Mass Fractal Dimension on Creep Behavior and Damage Mechanisms of Cemented Coal Gangue Backfill.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cemented Coal Gangue Backfill (CCGB) plays a pivotal role in sustainable mining practices, as its uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) directly dictates backfill stability, mining safety, and operational efficiency. However, existing research has yet to fully elucidate how key mix proportion parameters synergistically influence UCS across different curing stages, leaving a critical gap in optimizing CCGB performance. This study addresses this limitation by systematically investigating the factors governing CCGB's UCS under varied mix designs. First, single-factor tests identified optimal ranges for critical variables: mass concentration (80%-81%), fly ash content (3-4 kg), and fine gangue ratio (35%-45%). Using the response surface method (RSM), we then developed quadratic polynomial regression models for 1-day and 28-day UCS, which demonstrated excellent fit with R² values of 0.9672 and 0.9575, respectively. Our results reveal that the interaction between mass concentration and fly ash content exerts a more significant impact on UCS than the fine gangue ratio alone. Additionally, microscopic analysis indicates that during hydration, pozzolanic reactions and cement hydration reactions proceed in alternation rather than isolation-a mechanism previously underexplored in literature.
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.