“…The water‐holding capacity of FA was the best among the four filling materials, which may be because the particle size of FA is very small, with viscous texture and strong capillary action (Campbell, Fox, Aitken, & Bell, ; Salter & Williams, ). Moreover, FA is a fine cenosphere‐type powder with large surface area, and the SiO 2 and Al 2 O 3 in FA become hydrated with water (Chang, Lund, Page, & Warneke, ; Sambyal, Ruhi, Bhandari, & Dhawan, ); therefore, the water‐holding capacity of FA is the strongest. Under the same suction, the volumetric water content of the FA and CG mixture decreased compared with FA, which may be because the particle size and macropores increased with the addition of CG; moreover, the surface sorption capacity of CG to water is very small, which also reduced the water‐holding capacity (Ma et al ., ).…”