Biochar affects compressive strength of Portland cement composites: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".