ArticlePloS one2023
RETRACTED: Experimental study on the properties of ultra-high-strength geopolymer concrete with polypropylene fibers and nano-silica.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Steel and Polypropylene Fibers on Flexural Strength and Fracture Properties of Ambient-Cured Geopolymer Concrete.Polymers · 2026Article
- Sustainable soil stabilization with Nano-Silica and polypropylene fibers mechanical properties durability and microstructural analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Retraction: Experimental study on the properties of ultra-high-strength geopolymer concrete with polypropylene fibers and nano-silica.PloS one · 2026Article
- Enhancing the Mechanical and Rheological Properties of Coal-Based Geopolymer Grouting Materials with Nano-SiOPolymers · 2025Article
- Experimental study to compare the strength of concrete with different amounts of polypropylene fibers at high temperatures.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-04-06Cites Retracted Work · Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because of the recent progress in materials properties, specifically high-strength concrete, further research is needed to evaluate its suitability, understanding, and performance in the modern-day world. This research aims to enhance the performance of ultra-high-strength geopolymer concrete (UHS-GPC) by adding nano-silica (NS) and polypropylene fibers (PPFs). Three 1%, 2%, and 3% different amounts of PPFs and three NS 5%, 10%, and 15% were utilized in the samples. Various performance parameters of UHS-GPC were evaluated, such as fresh property, compressive strength, modulus of elasticity split tensile, flexural and bonding strength, drying shrinkage, load-displacement test, fracture performance, and elevated temperature. The test outcomes showed that by raising the percentage of PPFs and NS to the allowable limit, the performance of UHS-GPC can be improved significantly. The most improved performance of UHS-GPC was obtained at 2% polypropylene fibers and 10% nano-silica, as the compressive, splitting tensile, flexural. Bond strength was improved by 17.07%, 47.1%, 36.52, and 37.58%, and the modulus of elasticity increased by 31.4% at 56 days. The study showed that the sample with 2% PPFs and 10% NS had excellent performance in the load-displacement test, drying shrinkage, fracture behavior, and elevated temperature. At 750°C elevated temperature, the samples' strength was reduced drastically, but at 250°C, the modified samples showed good resistance to heat by retaining their compressive strength to some degree. The present work showed the suitability of PPFs and NS to develop ultra-high-strength geopolymer concrete, which can be used as a possible alternate material for Portland cement-based concrete.
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.