ArticlePolymers2025
Mechanical and Ultrasonic Evaluation of Epoxy-Based Polymer Mortar Reinforced with Discrete Fibers.
Article in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning models with SHAP for performance prediction of eco-friendly fiber reinforced mortars with glass waste.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Modeling and optimization of Multi-Waste foam geopolymers using central composite design and neural networks.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research investigates the ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and mechanical performance of epoxy-based polymer mortar (PM) reinforced with discrete fiber types to enhance structural behavior and promote sustainable construction practices. Four fiber types, polypropylene (PPF), natural date palm leaf fiber (DPL), glass fiber (GF), and carbon fiber (CF), were incorporated at varying volume fractions (0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5%) into PM matrices. A total of thirteen mixtures, including a fiber-free control, were prepared. UPV testing was conducted prior to mechanical testing to evaluate internal quality and homogeneity, followed by compressive and flexural strength tests to assess structural performance. The results demonstrated that fiber type and dosage significantly influenced fiber-reinforced PM (FRPM) behavior. UPV values showed strong positive correlations with compressive strength for PPF, DPL, and CF, confirming UPV's role as a non-destructive quality indicator. GF at 0.5% yielded the highest compressive strength (54.4 MPa), while CF and GF at 1.5% provided the greatest flexural enhancements (15 MPa), indicating improved ductility and energy absorption. Quadratic regression models were developed to predict strength responses as functions of fiber dosage. Although statistical significance was not achieved due to limited sample size, models for PPF and CF exhibited strong predictive reliability. Natural fibers such as DPL demonstrated moderate performance while offering environmental advantages through local renewability and low embodied energy. The study concludes that low fiber dosages, particularly 0.5%, enhance mechanical performance and material efficiency in FRPMs. The findings underscore the potential of FRPM as a durable and sustainable alternative to traditional cementitious materials.
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.