ArticleScientific reports2025
Optimizing nanomaterial dosages in concrete for structural applications using experimental design techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanomaterial-enhanced concrete offers a transformative route to improve mechanical and durability performance for structural applications. Despite the promise of nano-silica (NS), nano-alumina (NA), and graphene oxide (GO), a comparative evaluation under unified conditions remains limited. This study addresses that gap by experimentally investigating the effects of NS (1-3%), NA (1-3%), and GO (0.05-0.15%) on workability, strength, and durability properties of concrete. A two-factor statistical optimization using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was employed to model and predict compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths as functions of nanomaterial and superplasticizer dosages. Experimental results showed that NS and GO achieved a ~ 25% increase in compressive strength, while GO yielded the highest flexural improvement (~ 40%) at only 0.10% dosage. Durability metrics such as RCPT charge passed, water absorption, and sulfate resistance were significantly enhanced across all nano-modified mixes, with NS and GO outperforming NA. RSM confirmed nanomaterial dosage as the dominant factor influencing strength, while superplasticizer had no statistically significant effect. Optimal dosages were identified for each nanomaterial to maximize performance while avoiding overdosing effects. This study provides a comprehensive, optimization-driven comparison of NS, NA, and GO in concrete, offering valuable insights for designing durable, high-performance cementitious systems using tailored nanomodification strategies.
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.