ArticleACS omega2024
Shear Performance in Reinforced Concrete Beams with Partial Aggregate Substitution Using Waste Glass: A Comparative Analysis via Digital Imaging Processing and a Theoretical Approach.
Article in ACS omega, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bending performance of reinforced concrete beams with partial waste glass aggregate replacement assessed by experimental, theoretical and digital image correlation analyses.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Experimental Study on Flexural Performance of SFCB-Reinforced ECC-Concrete Composite Beams.Polymers · 2025Article
- Experimental, theoretical and digital image correlation methods to assess bending performance of RC beams with recycled glass powder replacing cement.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Utilizing recycled glass powder in reinforced concrete beams: comparison of shear performance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The usage of waste glass aggregate (WGA) associated with the replacement of fine aggregate (FA) and coarse aggregate (CA) is observed to reduce the number of raw materials for sustainable concrete. For this aim, a total of 15 beams were produced, and then investigational experiments were implemented to observe the shear performances. The stirrup spacing and WGA proportion were chosen as the main parameters. FA and CA were exchanged with WGA with weight proportions of 0, 10, and 20%. The experimental investigation results showed that changing stirrup spacing and WGA proportion affected the fracture and shear properties of reinforced-concrete-beams (R-C-Bs). Furthermore, the findings of the test results revealed that the proportion of WGA could be efficiently consumed as 20% of the partial replacement of FA. With the addition of FA to the mixture, the load carrying capacity of R-C-Bs increases. On the other hand, increasing the WGA ratio by more than 10% using CA, together with increasing the stirrup spacing, can significantly reduce the capacity of R-C-Bs. It was observed that the calculated shear strengths of R-C-Bs with inadequate stirrup spacing, based on ACI 318 and EC2 design codes, can be up to 52 and 79% higher than the experimental results for R-C-Bs containing coarse glass aggregate and 21 and 56% higher for R-C-Bs containing fine glass aggregate, respectively. Additionally, an image processing method was applied to describe the damages/microdamages in R-C-Bs. At that point, the findings obtained from the experimental part of the study were confirmed by the results of the image processing method. Although the strains obtained with the image processing method are reliable, it has not been determined exactly where the crack will occur due to the very sudden development of the shear crack at the moment of beam failure.
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.