ArticleScientific reports2025
Mechanical and impact behavior of lightweight geopolymer concrete produced by pumice and waste rubber.
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 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.
- Empirical Determination and Modelling of Compressive Strength of Cement Composites with Waste Tyre Rubber.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An experimental study on the impact behavior of geopolymer concrete incorporating recycled asphalt pavement aggregate.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Electromagnetic shielding performance and mechanical properties of vermiculite-based lightweight geopolymer mortars.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Sustainable high-performance injection geopolymers, role of GGBFS and water-to-binder ratio in strength, microstructure, and predictive modeling.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study examined the impact of incorporating pumice and rubber obtained from waste tires as aggregate in specific ratios on geopolymer concrete (GPC). For this aim, various combinations and replacement percentages of pumice and waste tire rubber (WTR) were tested in GPC. Pumice was replaced with coarse aggregate in varying proportions of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% and WTR was added into mixture with same proportions. A total of 144 GPC specimens were cast and tested. Tests were performed to measure the compressive strength (CS), splitting tensile strength (STS), flexural strength (FS) and dynamic drop-weight tests. Evaluations of the setting time and workability were also conducted. When natural coarse aggregate was substituted with pumice in concrete, the strength of the resulting mixtures fell. The second research varied the percentage of WTR in the concrete mixture from 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% while keeping the pumice percentage stable. The study showed that when the pumice ratio was set as constant, there was a steady loss of strength as the percentage of WTR increased. The experimental results demonstrated that partial replacement of coarse aggregate with pumice (up to 15%) led to a progressive reduction in both CS (up to 18.17%) and STS (up to 37.13%) of GPC. This decline in strength became more pronounced with the concomitant utilization of WTR. The findings demonstrated that as the WTR content elevated from 0 to 15%, there was a consistent decline in FS across all levels of pumice replacement, with reductions ranging approximately between 20 and 26%. Additionally, the study created an empirical formula related to STS and CS and compared with the formulas previously developed by various researchers. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Energy dispersive x-ray (EDX), and thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA) are also conducted. According to the data gathered from the impact tests, adding pumice to concrete has a negative impact on its impact behavior; on the other hand, adding 10% WTR has a favorable impact.
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.