ArticlePolymers2026
Comparative Experimental Study of Eco-Composite Reinforced Concrete Beams Under Flexural Loading: Sustainability Factors vs. Mechanical Performance.
Article in Polymers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is an experimental study on flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beam where three types of epoxy-bonded jacketing systems are used (glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC, S1), jute fiber-reinforced composite (JFRC, S2), and hybrid fiber-reinforced composite (HFRC, S3)) and an unjacketed control beam (S0). All the specimens were subjected to displacement-controlled three-point bending to measure the enhancement of strength, stiffness, and energy absorption using mass-normalized (TPM) and synthetic-content-normalized (TSM) performance indices. Jacketing compared to control also raised the maximum load from 11.80 N to 17.10 N for GFRC (+44.9%), to 14.64 N for JFRC (+24.1%), and to 14.89 N of HFRC (+26.2%). The energy taken up rose from 38.44 J (S0), 152.50 J (S1, +297%), 95.32 J (S2, +148%), and 132.79 J (S3, +245%). Flexural strength was also increased to 56.26 MPa (S1), 43.54 MPa (S2), and 51.38 MPa (S3) and yield strength was raised from 10.43 MPa (S0) to 26.40 MPa (S1), 16.84 Mpa (S2), and 23.05 Mpa (S3). The increase of flexural modulus between S0 (4871.33 MPa) and S1 (12,322.34 MPa), S2 (7862.61 MPa), and S3 (10,759.57 MPa) showed the enhancement of the stiffness. Mass-normalized performance showed great overall efficiency in the case of GFRC and HFRC, with TPM = 3.70 and 3.60 J/kg, respectively, and synthetic-content efficiency was higher in the case of JFRC, with TSM = 9.66 J/kg, which is the advantage of low-synthetic reinforcement in energy-based performance. In general, the suggested jacketing systems have a great influence on flexural responsiveness and power absorption, whereby GFRC and JFRC offer maximum capacity and stiffness, respectively, and the greatest efficiency per unit synthetic material, respectively. In terms of novelty, the paper is one of the first to measure the sustainability-based performance of an epoxy-bonded GFRC, HFRC, and bio-based JFRC jacketing, comparing the results in terms of synthetic-content efficiency (TSM) and mass-normalized indices, which reflect the energy absorption benefits per unit of synthetic material.
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.