ArticleScientific reports2025
Self-compacting concrete with fly ash and silica fume: experimental evaluation, microstructural analysis, and machine learning modeling.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of cold temperatures on abrasion resistance of concrete with different mixture compositions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Low Hydration Heat with High Strength in LHPC Composite Binders Governed by Hydration Efficiency and Matrix Densification.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrated experimental, machine learning, and life-cycle assessment of fly ash-silica fume based self-compacting geopolymer concrete.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study comprehensively evaluates the fresh, mechanical, durability, and microstructural performance of self-compacting concrete (SCC) incorporating fly ash (FA) and silica fume (SF) as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Cement was partially replaced with FA at 20%, 30%, and 40% and SF at 5%, 7.5%, and 10%, forming both binary and ternary combinations. The optimum FA content was established at 30%, beyond which early strength decreased due to dilution effects. Ternary blends with 30% FA + 5–10% SF were further developed to examine synergistic effects. Fresh property tests (slump flow, T₅₀₀, V-funnel, and L-box) confirmed all SCC mixes satisfied EFNARC criteria, with ternary blends exhibiting the best balance between flowability (720 mm slump flow), viscosity (T₅₀₀ = 3.5 s), and passing ability (H₂/H₁ ≥ 0.9). Mechanical performance improved consistently with SCM incorporation; at 180 days, the FA30SF7.5 mix attained 68 MPa compressive strength, 6.3 MPa split tensile, and 8.9 MPa flexural strength, surpassing the control by 17–22%. Durability tests demonstrated marked improvement, sorptivity reduced by 34%, rapid chloride penetration test (RCPT) charge fell from 3600 C (Moderate) to 800 C (Very Low), and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) exceeded 4.75 km/s, confirming a highly dense matrix. Microstructural analysis revealed a compact C–S–H gel network and diminished portlandite content in ternary mixes, evidencing improved hydration and pozzolanic activity. Machine learning (ML) models (KNN, SVM, DT, and RF) successfully predicted compressive strength, with the Random Forest model achieving R2 of 0.97. The combined experimental–ML approach demonstrates that SCC with 30% FA and 7.5% SF offers optimal performance, coupling sustainability with superior mechanical and durability characteristics.
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.