ArticleScientific reports2026
Mechanical and environmental performance of engineered earthen walls reinforced with waste carpet fibers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Crack propagation study in concrete and rock using discrete element method, digital image correlation and ultrasonic test.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the mechanical and environmental performance of rammed earth (RE) walls reinforced with waste polyacrylic carpet fibers (WPCF) and stabilized using either cement or an alkali-activated binder system prepared by activating Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) with potassium hydroxide (KOH). Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), and microstructural analyses (FESEM–EDS) were performed to examine performance mechanisms, while a cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) using ReCiPe 2016 in SimaPro assessed sustainability. Results showed that adding 10% stabilizer increased UCS by 85%, and 3% WPCF enhanced strength 1.2 times; combining both achieved 3.7-fold higher UCS and up to 6.2-fold higher BTS than untreated RE. LCA indicated that GGBS-based RE wall (S7F3) had a 12% lower footprint (3.96 Pt) than the cement-based RE wall (C7F3) and substantially lower impacts than brick–cement and concrete block walls. Overall, GGBS-stabilized RE reinforced with recycled WPCF demonstrates high mechanical performance, lower embodied impacts, and strong potential as a sustainable alternative to conventional construction materials. The integrated evaluation of WPCF rammed earth walls stabilized with GGBS, combining mechanical testing, microstructural analysis, and life cycle assessment to demonstrate both performance enhancement and environmental benefits compared to conventional masonry 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.