ArticleScientific reports2026
Impact performance and probabilistic reliability of natural fiber-reinforced standard and high-strength concrete.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of sustainable high-performance concrete has increasingly emphasized the incorporation of natural fibers to improve mechanical and impact resistance. This study presents a comprehensive and novel investigation of multiple natural fibers, coconut (0.5-1.5%), flax (0.1-0.5%), jute (0.15-0.55%), and bamboo, hemp, and kenaf (0.25-1.25%), evaluated in two concrete grades (M25 and M80). In addition to experimental assessment, probabilistic reliability modeling was integrated to characterize the stochastic nature of impact behavior in natural fiber-reinforced concrete (NFRC). Repeated impact testing in accordance with ACI 544-2R demonstrated that coconut fiber at 1-1.25% provided the highest impact resistance, increasing failure counts by 65% in M25 and 83% in M80 relative to the control concrete. Kenaf (0.75-1%) and bamboo (0.5-1%) exhibited moderate improvements of up to 20%, whereas jute, flax, and hemp produced comparatively modest gains of 5-10%. Despite substantial improvements in impact resistance, compressive strength remained comparable to that of the control concrete. Ductility indices and post-cracking ratios revealed distinct post-peak deformation mechanisms governed by fiber type, including pull-out, rupture, and interfacial slip. To further quantify performance differences, a grade-fiber synergy analysis was proposed to evaluate the interaction between concrete strength and fiber efficiency across grades. The probabilistic characterization of impact resistance was performed using Weibull statistics, supplemented by bootstrap resampling and Bayesian uncertainty analysis, enabling assessment of reliability and parameter stability. The results establish a reliability-based framework for optimizing NFRC formulations to improve structural resilience under dynamic loading.
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.