Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40877404›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Mechanical and transport properties of concrete incorporating recycled crushed clay bricks as coarse and fine aggregates.

Ahmed M N AbdElMoaty, Hatem H A Ibrahim, Mohamed K Ismail

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ahmed M N AbdElMoatyDepartment of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. ahmed.maged@eng.cu.edu.eg.
Hatem H A IbrahimDepartment of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Mohamed K IsmailDepartment of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recycling crushed clay bricks as both coarse and fine aggregates has shown promising potential for producing eco-friendly concrete, helping to reduce the industry's environmental footprint while promoting the sustainable reuse of waste materials. However, the inherent variability of these aggregates can lead to inconsistent concrete performance, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation to assess their suitability for construction applications. For this purpose, a number of concrete mixtures incorporating crushed clay bricks as coarse and/or fine aggregates were produced and tested in this study. Specifically, four mixtures incorporating crushed clay coarse aggregate (CCCA) and another four incorporating crushed clay fine aggregate (CCFA), each at replacement levels of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (by volume). Additionally, one mixture was fully developed using both CCCA and CCFA. For comparison, a control mixture containing 100% natural coarse and fine aggregates was also tested. The properties evaluated for all the developed mixtures included slump, dry density, water absorption, sorptivity, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, abrasion resistance, impact resistance, ultrasonic pulse velocity, and Schmidt rebound hammer. All results were statistically analyzed to assess the effect of CCCA and/or CCFA on the test outcomes and their significance. The results indicated that replacement levels of CCCA up to 25% and CCFA up to 50% could offer a viable alternative to conventional natural aggregates, while minimizing the deterioration of concrete properties. At any same replacement level, CCFA generally outperformed CCCA, except in abrasion resistance, where CCCA mixtures exhibited better performance. As for the sorptivity, the CCFA improved the capillary structure of concrete leading to lower water ingress, while the CCCA resulted in larger capillary pores and higher sorptivity values compared to the control mix. Under impact loading, replacing more than 25% of the aggregates with either CCCA or CCFA resulted in a significant reduction in the energy absorption capacity of the specimens, thus limiting their suitability for applications exposed to high impact loads. However, combining both CCCA and CCFA at full replacement levels can effectively produce sustainable semi-lightweight concrete with strengths above 25 MPa, making it suitable for various structural applications, although its suitability for environments requiring high abrasion and impact resistance is limited. The findings also suggest that non-destructive tests such as the Schmidt hammer and UPV tests can be used for assessment, with the Schmidt hammer test providing more reliable results for evaluations and estimations. Statistical analysis showed that CCCA, CCFA, and their interaction significantly affected most concrete properties. However, their use resulted in higher variability than natural aggregates, especially in splitting tensile strength, abrasion, and impact energy tests. While CCCA reduces embodied energy compared to natural coarse aggregates, the use of CCFA increases it, though CCFA remains a sustainable alternative for natural sand, aiding in resource conservation.

Indexed as

Crushed clay bricksImpact and abrasion resistanceMechanical propertiesNon-destructive testingRecycled concrete

Identifiers

PMID40877404
PMCPMC12394673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.