ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Application of FA-CGP-GGBS Geopolymers as Cement Substitute in Crushed Stone Base.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, a geopolymer was prepared using a sodium silicate solution to enhance the activity of coal gangue powder (CGP), fly ash (FA), and granulated blast furnace slag powder (GGBS) for replacing cement in the crushed stone base. The unconfined compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, water stability, and erosion resistance of geopolymers containing precursor contents (5%, 6%, 7%) were analyzed, and the reaction mechanism was systematically studied in combination with MIP, SEM, XRD, and TG. The cement content was 7%. The results indicate that the unconfined compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of the geopolymer mixture increased by 7.58% and 9.52%, respectively, compared with those of the cement mixture. The strength loss rate due to water stability and erosion resistance is reduced by 1.000% and 0.315%, respectively, compared with the cementitious system at the exact 7% cementitious material dosage. Compared with the cementitious system, the geopolymer system shows an 8% increase in harmless pores, a 10% reduction in harmful pores, and a 4.29% reduction in mass loss rate. This study proposes a new approach to utilizing solid waste resources and provides a theoretical basis for its application in gravel-based systems.
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.