MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392508431 · doi:10.1007/s42773-024-00309-2

Biochar affects compressive strength of Portland cement composites: a meta-analysis

2024· article· en· W4392508431 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochar · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBiocharPortland cementCompressive strengthMaterials scienceComposite materialCementitiousPyrolysisCementCuring (chemistry)Waste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One strategy to reduce CO 2 emissions from cement production is to reduce the amount of Portland cement produced by replacing it with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Biochar is a potential SCM that is an eco-friendly and stable porous pyrolytic material. However, the effects of biochar addition on the performances of Portland cement composites are not fully understood. This meta-analysis investigated the impact of biochar addition on the 7- and 28-day compressive strength of Portland cement composites based on 606 paired observations. Biochar feedstock type, pyrolysis conditions, pre-treatments and modifications, biochar dosage, and curing type all influenced the compressive strength of Portland cement composites. Biochars obtained from plant-based feedstocks (except rice and hardwood) improved the 28-day compressive strength of Portland cement composites by 3–13%. Biochars produced at pyrolysis temperatures higher than 450 °C, with a heating rate of around 10 C min -1 , increased the 28-day compressive strength more effectively. Furthermore, the addition of biochar with small particle sizes increased the compressive strength of Portland cement composites by 2–7% compared to those without biochar addition. Biochar dosage of < 2.5% of the binder weight enhanced both compressive strengths, and common curing methods maintained the effect of biochar addition. However, when mixing the cement, adding fine and coarse aggregates such as sand and gravel affects the concrete and mortar's compressive strength, diminishing the effect of biochar addition and making the biochar effect nonsignificant. We concluded that appropriate biochar addition could maintain or enhance the mechanical performance of Portland cement composites, and future research should explore the mechanisms of biochar effects on the performance of cement composites. Graphical Abstract

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it