ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Non-Monotonic Compressive Strength of Cement Mortars with Alternative Fine Aggregates.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alternative fine aggregates are often assessed using compressive strength at a single reference age, which may conceal an early maximum followed by later strength loss. This preliminary screening study compared mortars containing river sand (RS), standard sand (StS), desert sand (DS), soil sand (SS), coal gangue sand (CGS), and metamorphic rock sand (MRS) under one nominal mixture design. For each aggregate, one mortar batch was prepared and nine 70.7 mm cubes were cast, with three specimens tested at 3, 7, and 28 d. RS, StS, DS, and SS continued to gain strength. Within the single CGS batch, strength decreased from 15.56 ± 0.31 MPa at 7 d to 11.68 ± 0.15 MPa at 28 d; within the single MRS batch, it decreased from 21.63 ± 0.48 MPa to 15.75 ± 0.20 MPa. The corresponding losses were 24.95% and 27.18%, and exploratory within-batch Tukey tests yielded
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.