ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
3D-Printed Geopolymer Composite Truss Beam: Experimental Verification of Manufacturing and Load-Bearing Capacity in Four-Point Bending.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Geopolymers represent a promising material platform for extrusion-based 3D printing; however, current research remains largely focused on mix design, rheology, printability, buildability, and the relationship between process parameters and the resulting microstructure. This article therefore compares the behaviour of two 3D-printed geopolymer composite truss beams with reference cementitious composite beams developed within the 3D STAR project. The geopolymer elements, 2932 mm long, were designed for the same material volume and target geometry as the reference CC element; however, because of mixture spreading, they reached cross-sections of only approximately 140/250 mm and 170/250 mm. The first beam was printed without setting acceleration, while the second was locally treated with a hot-air gun. In four-point bending, GC-2 was loaded first and reached 22 kN, while GC-1 was loaded second and reached 29 kN; the reference cementitious beams reached 31 and 40 kN. The CC elements failed by rupture of the tensile reinforcement, while the GC elements failed by joint failure followed by deformation and local disintegration of the composite. The study thus shows that the main difference between the two systems lies not only in the achieved load-bearing capacity, but also in stiffness, the shape of the load-displacement diagrams, and the failure mechanism.
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.