Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

The behavior of graphene-nanoplatelets-based high-performance concrete

under ambient curing
Fouad Ismail Ismail a, b, *, Nasir Shafiq a, Yassir M. Abbas c, El Sayed Ateya b, Muhammad Zahid d,
Naraindas Bheel a, Omrane Benjeddou e, Isyaka Abdulkadir a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo 11884, Egypt
c
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 800-11421, Saudi Arabia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
e
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 16273, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of GnP on the hydration and mechanical properties
Graphene nanoplatelets of HPC at ambient curing conditions. This research focused on the properties of HPC mixes containing various
High-performance concrete dosages of GnP [0.00 (control mix), 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 % wt.]. The first phase involved monitoring
Ambient curing
the hydration behavior of GnP-HPC using Fourier-transform Infrared spectroscopy. Another aspect of GnP-HPC
Hydration
Compressive strength
was its mechanical behavior (compressive, tensile, flexural, and modulus of elasticity). These responses were
Direct tensile strength evaluated in accordance with ASTM C39, JSCE, ASTM C293, and ASTM C469 at various ages (3, 7, 28, 56, and
90 days). The current data was additionally used to evaluate the reproducibility of the ACI 318, ACI 363, and EC-
2 formulas, as well as those proposed in earlier research. This research program also developed formulas for
predicting GnP-HPC strength properties using a variety of nano-reinforcement materials, and its effectiveness
was evaluated based on present and independent data. Test results show that the incorporation of GnP increased
HPC’s carbonization degree. Moreover, 0.02 % GnP improved compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths by
20.8, 30.0, and 13.2 %, respectively. Moreover, the modulus of elasticity increased by 21.7 % for the same GnP
concentration. It was concluded that the models developed for relationships among various properties of GnP-
HPC; modulus of elasticity, tensile strength, and flexural strength was found reliable. Predicted results were
obtained up to 90 % of the experimental results in many cases.

1. Introduction years [4–6].

The idea of sustainable, eco-friendly, and highly pozzolanic binders
and chemicals began in the 1970 s that further led to the development of
high-performance concrete (HPC). In subsequent decades, HPC was
increasingly used in bridge construction, high-rise building construc­
tion, and offshore construction due to its several advantages. Such
include high early strength, volume stability, and superior mechanical
and durability properties [1]. However, the HPC production process
encountered many constraints and concerns (e.g., high-quality mix
constituents, optimum mix design, low water-binder ratio (W/B) [1–3])
that caused compromises on the cost-efficiency. In the later research
studies, nanomaterials were introduced to improve the mechanical
properties of concrete, which are gaining more popularity in recent
Most of the studies indicated that nanomaterials (e.g., carbon
nanotubes, graphene, titanium oxide, nano silica, and nano alumina)
could significantly improve the mechanical properties of cementitious
composites [7,8]. In recent years, graphene nanoplatelets (GnP, a
carbon-based nanomaterial with a two-dimensional structure, low-cost
nanoparticles [9], nanoscale thickness, large surface areas, and several
layers of graphene [10]) have attracted substantial research attention
[11,12]. A key feature of GnP is its high Young’s modulus, stiffness, and
fracture resistance [13]. It is also noted that the durability of concrete is
also significantly improved with relatively low concentrations of GnP
[14]. Similarly, other mechanical properties of conventional concrete
and HPC have also been improved by GnP [15–17].
As a result of its superior properties, graphene is currently being used

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia.
E-mail address: fouad_20001008@utp.edu.my (F.I. Ismail).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.11.086
Received 5 August 2022; Received in revised form 19 November 2022; Accepted 21 November 2022
Available online 1 December 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Table 1 further research. The casting-in-situ concrete construction process can

The chemical composition of PC and SF. be accelerated using this curing approach, thus increasing cost-effi­
PC SF ciency. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ambient curing
conditions on the hydrations process and mechanical properties of GnP-
SiO2 8.59 94.24
Al2O3 2.00 0.47 HPC. In the first part of the study, we investigated the hydration prop­
Fe2O3 3.18 1.33 erties of GnP-HPC. Secondly, we examined the impact of GnP on con­
TiO2 0.17 – crete’s mechanical properties. A third objective involved developing
MnO 0.15 – reliable formulas to predict the GnP-HPC’s strength properties.
MgO 0.62 0.42
CaO 81.20 0.89
Na2O – 0.28 2. Materials and methods
ZnO 0.03 –
SrO 0.03 – 2.1. Materials
CuO 0.03 –
K2O 0.72 0.15
P2O5 0.56 – 2.1.1. Portland cement and silica fume
SO3 2.78 0.02 In this study, the HPC mixes were developed using locally made Type
L.O.I. 2.20 3.28 II ordinary Portland cement (PC). According to ASTM C150/C150M, the
Specific gravity 3.15 2.20 cement conforms to CEM II/B-L 32.5 N grading. The PC content was
supplemented with locally sourced Silica fume (SF) at a replacement
in cement composites in various forms using various techniques. In the level of 7 % (wt.). Table 1 lists the physicochemical properties of PC and
cement paste, graphene oxide (GO) improved the pore structure [18]. SF. Both the microstructural properties and phase characteristics of the
Adding 0.04 wt% of GO also enhanced cement paste’s compressive SF were examined via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray
strength by 14 %. Furthermore, 0.06 wt% of melamine superplasticizer diffraction (XRD), respectively. Fig. 1 displays the results of these tests.
modified GnP increased the flexural strength of cement composites by In the 2-θ range of 15–27◦, SF exhibited a hump in the XRD analysis.
20 % [13]. Incorporated graphene oxides (GO) and reduced graphene
oxides (rGO) in the range of 0.01 to 0.16 wt% enhanced the compressive 2.1.2. Fine and coarse aggregate
and flexural characteristics of cement composite by 28–81 % and 30–84 The current study used natural fine sand (NS) in the HPC mixes. The
%, respectively [19]. fineness modulus and the specific gravity of the NS were 2.86 and 2.65,
As well, adding GO by 0.03 wt% increased the tensile, flexural, and respectively. The HPC mixes were also composed of crushed granite
compressive strength of the cement composite by 78.6, 60.7, and 38.9 coarse aggregate (CA) with a particle size range of 5–12.50 mm. Both NS
%, respectively [20]. A 0.06 wt% addition of GO also improved ultra­ and CA met ASTM C33/C33M-18 requirements. Fig. 2 depicts the par­
high performance concrete’s compressive, tensile, flexural, and elastic ticle size distributions of PC, SF, NS, and CA.
modulus by 16.0 30.5, 23.4, and 13.0 %, respectively [21]. Moreover,
incorporating GnP by 0.02 wt% improved HPC’s bond stress capacity by 2.1.3. Graphene nanoplates and superplasticizer
53.90 % [22]. In addition to reducing porosity by 41.4 %, GnP also The current study used GnP grade C black powder granules (Table 2,
increased compressive strength and bending modulus by 43.5 and 39.1 xGnP-C300, sourced from XG Sciences, USA) as nano-reinforcement
%, respectively [23]. Additionally, 0.05 wt% rGO added to HPC signif­ materials. The XRD, SEM, and Transmission Electron Microscope
icantly increased its compressive, tensile, flexural, and elastic properties (TEM) patterns of GnP are illustrated in Fig. 3. According to this figure,
[24]. the XRD pattern showed the typical peak intensities at 50, 42.31, and
The properties of cement-based composites can be positively influ­ 54.60◦ . While the TEM image shows the grain size of this GNP. It is
enced by nanoparticles, according to previous literature reviews. The worth mentioning that the flowability of HPC mixes was enhanced (i.e.,
inclusion of GnP could enhance HPC’s mechanical properties by 100–150 mm slump) with a polycarboxylate-ether-based super­
providing a dense internal matrix. Due to the limited amount of avail­ plasticizer (called Sika Viscocrete-2088), which complies with ASTM
able research, investigating the effects of ambient-curing conditions on C494/C494-08.
the properties of HPC was considered a gap in this area and required

Fig. 1. (a) SEM of Silica Fume and (b) XRD of Silica Fume (Q: Quartz).

695
F.I. Ismail et al.
Fig. 2. Particle size distribution: (a) PC and SF, and (b) NS and CA.
Table 2
Physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of the GnP.
Product Density Diameter Thickness (nm)
(g/cm3) (µm)
xGnP-C300 0.20–0.40 ≈2 ≈2
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Design of mixes
In this research, six concrete mixes were prepared with GnP con­
centration as the primary variable (Table 3). There was no GnP in the
control mix, whereas the other mixes contained 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.30,
or 0.50 % (wt. of PC) GnP. Throughout all mixes, the unit weight for
water, PC, SF, CA, NS-CS, and SP was 165.8, 500, 35, 1072.3, 660.2, and
10 kg/m3, respectively. Interestingly, the control mix design was
formulated according to ACI PRC-211.1–91 guidelines, targeting a 60
MPa characteristic strength.
2.2.2. Mixing, casting, and curing
During this experimental program, we developed a homogeneous
GnP solution as a pre-mixture for concrete mixing. This solution was
prepared by adding the weight GnP and SP to 10 % of the needed mixing
water and blending for 5-min (as recommended by previous studies
[25–27]) on an electric stirrer (a hot plate with a temperature of 520◦
and speeds between 100 and 1500 rpm). Following that, the weighted
solid particles (PC, SF, NS-CS, and CA) were mixed for 2-min in a con­
crete mixer (pan type with double rotation, 30L capacity, 20–24 rpm
speed) to obtain homogeneous mixing. It was then necessary to add the
remaining (90 %) of the mixing water before stopping the mixer for two
minutes. Eventually, the homogeneous GnP solution was then added to
the concrete mixer and stirred for another 2-min to ensure consistency.
A flowchart of the above-mentioned mixing procedure (for HPC
mixes is shown in Fig. 4. As soon as the fresh concrete was mixed, it was
poured into the testing molds. In this casting process, three layers were
poured, and each layer was compacted with an electric vibrator. The
purpose of this compaction was to remove air voids from concrete
without segregating particles. Then, the concrete samples were kept in
their molds for 24-h. The specimens were then de-molded and stored
under ambient curing conditions (at 25 ◦ C and 60 % RH) in the labo­
ratory until testing.
Structures 47 (2023) 694–708
Surface Area Carbon Content (%) Elastic Modulus Tensile strength (GPa)
(GPa)
(m2/g)
300 99.52 1000 5
2.2.3. Hydration test
This study utilized Fourier-transform Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to
examine the hydration products and evaluate the presence of functional
groups in the control and GnP-HPC mixes. The FTIR spectra of all HPC
mixes were collected at 28 days of age. A Perkin Emler spectrometer was
used for the FTIR test with a 400–4000 cm− 1 infrared wavelength range.
All cured specimens should be grounded into powder with 300 mesh
fineness using a concrete grinder, dried in a drying oven at 40 ◦ C for 24
h, then pressed into slices using potassium bromide for testing.
2.2.4. Elasticity modulus and strength tests
In this investigation, three specimens from each mix were evaluated
for their mechanical properties, while the average is presented. Here,
concrete specimens of 100 mm cubes were tested for 3-, 7-, 28-, 56-, and
90-day compressive strengths. The cubes were selected for the test due
to the huge number of specimens required for cubic compressive
strength and the limited amount of GnP. Moreover, the cubes specimens
were examined to only evaluate the effect of GnP on the cubic
compressive strength. Further, cylindrical concrete specimens of 150
(dia.) × 300 (ht.) mm were also tested to determine their elasticity
modulus (MOE) and the cylindrical compressive strength (fc ) and the
′
compressive stress strain response following 28 days of aging. The ten­
sile strength of HPC mixes was also investigated using dog bone speci­
mens loaded uniaxially at 3-, 7-, 28-, 56-, and 90-days. This study did not
consider the 3-day tensile strength measurement because it showed
small values. Additionally, the flexural strength of all concrete mixes
was evaluated with a three-point load test on 100 × 100 × 500 mm
prisms. Thus, a total of 90 cubic-, 72 dog bone, 18 prism-, and 18 cy­
lindrical specimens were investigated in this study (Fig. 5).
2.2.4.1. Elasticity modulus and compressive strength. This study deter­
mined concrete mixes’ modulus of elasticity (Ec , MOE) using the ASTM
C469 method. The MOE can be calculated according to this standard by
applying a secant modulus equivalent to 40 % of concrete’s cylindrical
696
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Fig. 3. (a) XRD, (b) SEM, and (c) TEM for GnP.

order to investigate the tensile strength (ft ) of the HPC mixes. Here, the
′

Table 3 uniaxial test was conducted [Fig. 6 (c)] using a 200 kN Digital Universal
GnP content (kg/m3) in the HPC mixes. Testing Machine (UTM) with a speed of 0.00833 mm/s under
Mix ID GnP- GnP- GnP- GnP- GnP- GnP- displacement-controlled conditions. A gradual load was applied until
0.00 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.30 0.50 the specimen failed after the specimen was placed on the machine’s
GnP 0.0 0.1 0.25 0.5 1.5 2.5 support blocks. On top of the sample in the center area, a strain gauge
with a length of 67 mm was mounted to measure strain in the pure
tension zone.
compressive strength. In the related test, sika grout was applied to each A vital aspect of assessing nonconventional HPC is understanding its
sample’s bottom and top surfaces before the test in order to ensure ho­ flexural properties. This investigation also investigated the flexural
mogeneous stress distribution. Additionally, a compressor meter with an behavior of developed HPC mixes using the three-point loading test
effective gauge length of 200 mm was placed in the middle of the cy­ setup [Fig. 6 (d)] as specified in ASTM C293-08. Dynamically-controlled
lindrical sample and tightened using gauge points [Fig. 6 (a)]. actuators (200 kN in capacity) were coupled to a self-straining loading
Further, measurement of longitudinal shortening (strain) was con­ frame that was configured to execute load at 0.05 kN/s speed. The en­
ducted with the compressor meter equipped with an extensometer. As ergy absorption (flexural toughness, FT) and ductility index, DI, were
well, the entire setup was centered on the lowest platen of a digital also determined based on the load–deflection curve derived from this
compression machine (with 3000 kN capacity). Noteworthy is that this test. The area under the load–deflection curve was used to calculate the
test was conducted under load-controlled conditions at a rate of 5.3 kN/ material’s FT. Additionally, the DI was evaluated as the ratio between
s. Moreover, this study investigated the cubic compression strength of deflection at peak load and deflection at first crack load. An assessment
concrete mixes by using a uniaxial compression machine capable of of ductility or fragility of concrete is normally made by the ductility
3000 kN and in compliance with ASTM C39/C39M-21, As exhibited in index (DI), as fragility inversely correlates with ductility. A general rule
Fig. 6 (b). Additionally, this test was conducted under load-controlled of thumb is that DI is the ratio of deflection at peak load to that at crack
conditions at a speed of 3.0 kN/s and ended with a failure of the initiation. Due to the fact that the GnP-HPC of this study did not pinpoint
material. the first crack, the DI will be used as the deflection at peak load.

2.2.4.2. Tensile and flexural strengths tests. This investigation adopted

the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) recommendations in

697
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Fig. 4. GnP dispersion process.

Fig. 5. Concrete specimens.

3. Results and discussion
3.1. FTIR analysis
Fig. 7 shows the FTIR analysis of HPC and HPC-GnP mixes. Based on
the figure, it is apparent that no new crystalline phase was formed in
HPC-GnP composites due to typical hydration product absorption bands.
For the main bands observed, the vibration peaks of H2O molecules that
occurred at 3435 cm− 1 and 1637 cm− 1 [28] displayed a peak intensity
that was higher for the HPC-GnP Specimens. Moreover, the stretching
vibration of the Portlandite O–H bond in [SiO4]4− which occurred at a
wavenumber of 3643 cm− 1 [29] presented a greater peak intensity for
the HPC-GnP samples than the control sample. Additionally, the Si-O
asymmetric stretching vibrations of CSH occurred at 1010 cm− 1 [30];
the vibration intensity was sharp for GnP specimens and greater than the
control sample.
Furthermore, at 1115 cm− 1, an asymmetric Si–O–Si [31] vibration
band has been observed. Moreover, peaks of calcite, which are symp­
tomatic of carbonation peaks, were seen in all mixes at 1426 cm− 1 and
875 cm− 1, which were ascribed to C–O stretching and C–O bend vi­
bration, respectively. The vibration intensity of the C–O bond likewise
increases when GnP is included. As a result of the inclusion of graphene,
the carbonization degree of HPC has risen. In addition to that, the Si-O
in-plane vibration of CSH occurred at 464 cm− 1 [30] and displayed a
greater vibration intensity for the GnP specimens than for control
samples.

698
F.I. Ismail et al.
Fig. 6. Testing setups: (a) MOE & cylindrical compression, (b) cubic compression, (c) tension, and (d) flexure.
The mentioned peaks for these properties suggest that GnP was
successfully oxidized and maintained good hydrophilic nature. This is
caused by the presence of groups that include oxygen, such as carboxyl.
Additionally, compared to the control sample, the GnP specimens
exhibit a narrower and deeper absorption peak. However, the increase of
GnP content from 0.02 to 0.50 % resulted in a less deep absorption peak,
as indicated at the C–O bond. Furthermore, the interaction between the
hydration products and carboxyl groups which are on the surface of GnP
can be responsible for the enhancement of mechanical properties, as
reported by Li et al. [32] for the CNTs. Likewise, the test observations
are consistent with the ones reported in [33–35].
3.2. Elasticity modulus and compressive strength
3.2.1. Modulus of elasticity
Fig. 8 shows the average MOE for the control and GnP-based HPC.
The MOE ranged between 32 and 46 GPa, which is close to the well-
known range for HPC mixes (i.e., 35–40 GPa [36]). Fig. 8 depicts the
MOE improvement of 21.70, 1.87, and 3.48 %, respectively, for GnP at
0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 %, compared to the reference sample. It is believed
that this improvement in stiffness was due to reduced porosity of
hardened HPC with the addition of GnP at a lower concentration. As
699
Structures 47 (2023) 694–708
reported by Zhao et al. [37] and Chen et al. [38], graphene-based
cement composites demonstrate an increase in elastic modulus with
graphene incorporation. Conversely, GnP of 0.30 and 0.50 % reduced
MOE by 9.61 and 13.35 %, respectively. With higher doses of GnP,
particle agglomeration and less workable mixes were candidate causes
of the lower stiffness.
3.2.2. Compressive strength and failure mode
Fig. 9 (a) depicts the failure pattern of specimens with and without
GnP. As indicated in the failure pattern of specimens under compressive
testing, it can be observed that when the GnP content rose from 0.00 to
0.02 %, the concrete specimens withstood higher loads, and the failure
was associated with lesser crack developments. However, the pattern of
the cracks became wider than the reference sample with the higher
content of GnP inclusion as indicated in Fig. 9 (a), which could be
attributed to the agglomeration of GnP, which caused more voids in the
specimens. Accordingly, the crack width is regulated by the GnP addi­
tion. Furthermore, with the GnP inclusion, no changes have been
observed in the failure mode of specimens under compressive testing.
Fig. 9 (b) indicates the stress–strain behaviors of samples under
compressive testing at 28 days of curing. The compressive strain at the
peak stress was 0.00203, 0.0024, 0.00215, 0.00227, 0.00198, and
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

GnP 0.00% GnP 0.02% GnP 0.05% GnP 0.10% GnP 0.30% GnP 0.50%

1637
3435

464
2515

1010
3643

1426

875
Si-O

Si-O
H2O
O-H
H 2O C-O

C-O

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

Wavelength (cm-1)

Fig. 7. FTIR pattern of HPC-GnP mixes.

affected the cubic compressive strength of HPC samples. The 28-day

cubic compressive strength was enhanced by 0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 %
60
GnP, but reduced by 0.30 and 0.50 % GnP. By adding 0.02, 0.05, and
0.10 % GnP, HPC showed an increase in compressive strength of 20.82,
8.41, and 9.48 %, respectively, over the control specimen. However, the
50 45.6 addition of 0.30 and 0.50 % GnP decreased the 28-day compressive
strength by 3.28 and 2.1 %. Thus, GnP of 0.02 % had the greatest pos­
Elasticity Modulus, GPa

37.5 38.8 itive impact on HPC compressive strength, which supports the findings
38.2 of Mokhtar et al. [38] and Dong et al. [23].
40 33.9 Compared to the control mix, adding 0.02 %, GnP resulted in 9.75
32.5 and 17.26 % strength increases at early ages (3- and 7-days). A similar
finding was reported by Jyothimol et al. [24], it showed an increase in
30 strength at an early age derived from the inclusion of rGO in concrete.
Moreover, at 3-days, the compressive strength of mixes containing GnP
of 0.05–0.50 % was less than or comparable to that of the control mix. In
spite of this, the HPC with these percentages had a higher strength after
20 7-days than the control samples. In comparison to the control mixes, the
HPC with GnP 0.30 and 0.50 % showed higher 7-day compressive
strength but lowered 28-day strength.
Furthermore, HPCs containing 0.02–0.10 % GnP exhibited an
10 enhanced compressive strength throughout 56- and 90-day de­
0.00 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.30 0.50 velopments. At those ages, however, HPC containing 0.30 and 0.50 %
GnP, % GnP showed very small increases in strength. The enhanced micro­
structure caused by GnP inclusion is likely responsible for the strength
Fig. 8. The elasticity modulus of HPC-GnP mixes. enhancement. The steady decrease in compressive strength could also be
explained by difficulties in distributing GnP uniformly throughout the
0.00209 for the specimens of GnP 0.00 % to GnP 0.50 %, respectively. concrete mix at higher doses of GnP.
The results reveal a considerable enhancement in the compressive strain
capacity by 18.22, 5.91, 11.82, and 2.95 % for the GnP content of 0.02,
0.05, 0.10, and 0.50 %, respectively. On the other hand, the GnP in­ 3.3. Tensile and flexural behaviors
clusion of 0.30 % reduced the compressive strain by 2.46 %. Addition­
ally, the inclusion of GnP with a content of 0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 % 3.3.1. Tensile behavior
resulted in a stiffer and steeper stress–strain curve than the control The failure mode for GnP-based HPC is illustrated in Fig. 10 (a). As
sample due to the GnP inclusion, which led to a denser and more can be seen from the figure, the dog bone sample failed due to a single
compact nanocomposite. At the same time, GnP 0.30 and 0.50 % crack near its center (similar to a conventional concrete failure).
resulted in soft concrete with less inclination of the curve toward the Furthermore, Fig. 10 (b) displays the tensile stress–strain behavior of the
horizontal axis. GnP-HPC mixes at 28 days of curing. The figure illustrates that the GnP-
Fig. 9 (c) illustrates the effect of GnP on the cubic compressive HPC had strain capacities of 280–420 mm/mm, which exceeded those of
strength of HPC at different ages. The figure shows that GnP significantly plain concrete (150–350 mm/mm) [39]. Accordingly, the nano-re­
inforcement’s ability to increase the ductility of the material was

700
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Fig. 9. Compressive response of GnP-HPC: (a) failure pattern, (b) compressive stress strain curves, and (c) cubic compressive strength development.

701
F.I. Ismail et al.
Fig. 10. Tensile behavior of GnP-HPC: (a) failure pattern, (b) tensile stress–strain response, and (c) tensile strength development.
demonstrated by this finding. The tensile strain capacity increased by
about 41, 5, 18, 26, and 51 %, respectively, with GnP of 0.02, 0.05, 0.10,
0.30, and 0.50 %, respectively. An inclusion of 0.50 % GnP was found to
increase strain capacity the most but reduced tensile strength by 17.75
%.
Fig. 10 (c) demonstrates the tensile strength development of the GnP-
based HPC. It is evident that the addition of GnP notably affects the
tensile strength. By adding GnP of 0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 %, the 28-day
tensile strength was improved by 30.1, 2.0, and 6.3 %, respectively.
However, the 28-day tensile strength decreased with a GnP rate of 0.30
and 0.50 % by 15.6 and 17.8 %, respectively. Under the current cir­
cumstances, a GnP of 0.02 % had the greatest impact on the 28-day
tensile strength of HPC. Several studies have reached similar conclu­
sions, including Mokhtar et al. [38], Lanzhen et al. [21], and Meng et al.
[40].
The incorporation of 0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 % GnP had increased the 7-
day tensile strength by9.76 %, 18.75 %, and 12.10 %, respectively.
702
Structures 47 (2023) 694–708
Moreover, GnP of 0.30 % indicated an increase in the tensile strength of
9.76 % at seven days of age. In addition to that, the control samples
showed an increase of 7 and 14 % in the tensile strength at 56 and 90
days, respectively, in comparison to 28-day samples.
GnP of 0.02 % indicated an increase of 2 and 4 % at 56 and 90 days,
respectively, in comparison to 28-day samples. Moreover, GnP of 0.05,
0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 % indicated an increased range between 3 and 7 %
at 56-days in comparison to 28-day samples. Also, GnP of 0.05, 0.10,
0.30, and 0.50 % indicated an increased range between 6 and 9 % at 90-
days in comparison to 28-day samples. The influence of GnP inclusion on
the direct tensile strength can be attributed to the high interaction be­
tween GnP and cracks because of the high aspect ratio and two-
dimensional structure of GnP. Moreover, the progressive reduction
might be due to GnP agglomeration, which makes it harder to obtain
uniform GnP dispersion throughout the concrete mix.
F.I. Ismail et al.
Fig. 11. Flexural behavior of GnP-HPC: (a) failure pattern at testing, (b) flexural strength versus mid-span deflection, and (b) flexural strength development.
3.3.2. Flexural behavior
3.3.2.1. Flexural strength. Fig. 11 (a) depicts the failure pattern of the
concrete prisms. It can be observed that all samples have failed abruptly
without any indication for the first crack. Additionally, the failure crack
occurred at the middle span of specimens as expected, and the GnP in­
clusion has no effect on that. Furthermore, the GnP inclusion has no
impact on the failure mode of the concrete prisms.
Fig. 11 (b)–(c) shows the impact of GnP on HPC’s flexural strength
and midspan deflection at 28 days of curing. The increase in GnP per­
centage up to 0.1 % contributed to the improvement in flexural strength,
which is in line with that reported in [13]. The results of increasing GnP
dosages over that dosage, however, resulted in decreased flexural
strength. Among the three GnP concentrations, 0.02, 0.05, and 0.10 %
enhancement in flexural strength was observed at 13.2, 2.5, and 4.3 %.
GnP concentrations of 0.30 and 0.50 % reduced flexural strength by 11.1
and 12.4 %, respectively. Several studies [21,24,40–43] have shown
graphene can improve the flexural strength of composites compared to
those without, up to a certain extent. The deformability and fiber
characteristics of GnP may be contributing to the improved flexural
strength. The HPC was likely able to resist more flexural loads until
703
Structures 47 (2023) 694–708
failure after cracking because of these characteristics. The gradual
decrease may also be linked to GnP agglomeration, thereby reducing
uniform GNP dispersion in the concrete mix, as observed by Zhao et al.
[10].
3.3.2.2. Flexural toughness. Fig. 11 (c) depicts the effect of GnP inclu­
sion on the FT of HPC. The figure shows that adding GnP to concrete
typically improves its flexural toughness, which agrees with the con­
clusions of [13]. The addition of GnP at 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50
% improved the FT by 79.9, 27.6, 43.5, 22.2, and 10.5 %, respectively.
Further, as shown in Fig. 11 (b)–(c), GnP samples showed a higher mid-
span deflection, resulting in an enhanced FT. A key role played by GnP in
promoting HPC composite post-cracking properties was its bridging
actions. This study confirms the findings of Meng et al. [40], which
found that GnP of 0.02 % has the greatest influence on HPC’s FT.
3.3.2.3. Ductility index. Fig. 11 (c) shows the DI (ultimate deflection)
results. Accordingly, inclusion of GnP with 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and
0.50 % increased DI by 43.1 %, 12.8 %, 33.0 %, 46.8 %, and 56.0 %,
respectively. Regarding DI, GnP of 0.30 and 0.50 % had the most suc­
cessful performance. While DI increased, flexural strength decreased in
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Table 4
The calculated (based on available formulas) and tested MOE.
GnP EExp
c EACI318
c EACI363
c EEC2
c EMal.
c EACI318
c EACI363
c EEC2
c EMal.
c
EExp
c EExp
c EExp
c EExp
c
% (GPa)
Eq. - A1 A2 A3 A4

0.00 37.5 33.7 30.5 35.8 37.6 0.90 0.81 0.96 1.00
0.02 45.6 37.0 32.9 37.9 39.0 0.81 0.72 0.83 0.86
0.05 38.2 35.0 31.5 36.7 38.2 0.92 0.83 0.96 1.00
0.10 38.8 35.2 31.6 36.8 38.2 0.91 0.82 0.95 0.99
0.30 33.9 33.1 30.1 35.4 37.3 0.98 0.89 1.05 1.10
0.50 32.5 33.3 30.3 35.6 37.4 1.03 0.93 1.10 1.15
μ 0.92 0.83 0.97 1.02
σ 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09

Table 5
The calculated [based on the proposed formula (Eq. (1))] and tested MOE.
Ref. Mix Nanomaterial fc
′
EExp
c EProp
c EProp
c
No. ID Type (%) MPa GPa GPa EExp
c

This study 1 GnP 0.00 % GnP 0.00 50.6 37.5 35.8 0.95
2 GnP 0.02 % 0.02 61.1 45.6 39.3 0.86
3 GnP 0.05 % 0.05 54.9 38.2 37.2 0.97
4 GnP 0.10 % 0.10 55.4 38.8 37.4 0.96
5 GnP 0.30 % 0.30 48.9 33.9 35.2 1.04
6 GnP 0.50 % 0.50 49.5 32.5 35.4 1.09
[45] 7 2@1 NS 1.50 76.6 39.8 44.0 1.11
8 2@2 NS 1.50 75.2 39.0 43.6 1.12
9 3@1 NS & SF 1.50 86.5 41.4 46.8 1.13
10 3@2 NS & SF 1.50 84.8 41.8 46.3 1.11
[46] 11 NC1 Nanoclay 1.00 52.0 33.3 36.3 1.09
12 NC2 2.00 51.0 34.3 35.9 1.05
13 NC3 3.00 54.5 35.6 37.1 1.04
[24] 14 rGO1 rGO 0.03 51.0 37.0 35.9 0.97
15 rGO2 0.05 53.0 39.0 36.6 0.94
16 rGO3 0.07 51.0 34.0 35.9 1.06
[47] 17 C-SS-0.10 CNTSS 0.10 57.5 41.0 38.1 0.93
18 C-SS-0.50 CNTSS 0.50 51.2 37.0 36.0 0.97
19 C-PL-0.05 CNTPL 0.05 52.1 36.0 36.3 1.01
20 C-PL-0.05 (SP) CNTPL 0.05 64.0 43.0 40.2 0.93
21 C-OH-0.05 CNTOH 0.05 50.7 37.0 35.8 0.97
[48] 22 M2 NS 1.00 112.7 46.2 53.4 1.16
23 M3 NS 2.00 115.2 50.3 54.0 1.07
24 M15 Ni ferrite 1.00 112.3 49.3 53.3 1.08
25 M16 Ni ferrite 2.00 113.7 50.2 53.6 1.07
26 M25 Cu-Zn ferrite 1.00 111.3 50.1 53.0 1.06
27 M26 Cu-Zn ferrite 2.00 116.8 51.1 54.3 1.06
μ 1.03
σ 0.074

comparison to the reference sample. The enhancement of HPC with 0.02
% GnP in terms of flexural strength, energy absorption capacity, and
ductility index is likely to be attributed to the crack mitigation efficiency
of GnP at this reinforcement level.
4. Prediction formulas
In this investigation, we compared the predictive capabilities of
certain international design codes (ACI 318, ACI 363, and EC-2) and
formulas created by others (detailed in Table A1 in the Appendix) to
current and independent data. The strength properties (elasticity
modulus, tensile, and flexural strength) were accounted for as a function
of the compressive strength of GnP-HPC. Moreover, more precise and
practical equations are proposed for predicting these properties.
4.1. Elasticity modulus
this study. The average predicted-observed ratios are 0.92, 0.83, and
0.97, respectively, with standard deviations of 7, 7, and 8 %. As for the
equation of Malaikah [44], the mean ratio was 1.02, while the standard
deviation was 9 %. It was therefore found that Malaikah’s equation [44]
made a better prediction of MOE for GnP-HPC, which could be used
effectively for estimating MOE.
Based on the current and existing experimental data (Table 5), Eq (1)
is proposed to estimate the MOE of HPC containing nano-reinforcement
material. The prediction capacity of the proposed formula was found to
be rational for these test data, with an average and standard deviation of
1.03 and 7.4 % for predicted–tested results, respectively. The reasonable
prediction performance is further illustrated in Fig. 12, where the ma­
jority of predicted–tested data points are within an accuracy range of
±95 %.
√̅̅̅̅
′
EcProp = 5027 f c (1)

Table 4 shows the predicted MOE based on ACI 318, ACI 363R, EC-2,
and Malaikah [44]. This table also shows the ratios of the predicted- 4.2. Tensile strength
tested results and their means (μ) and standard deviations (σ ). The ACI
318, ACI 363R, and EC-2 formulas underestimated the tested values in Table 6 shows the predicted tensile strength based on the equations

704
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

55 363R equation matches the test results more closely than the other
This study prediction equations, with a mean ratio of 1.03 and a standard deviation
[45] of 6 %. Furthermore, the prediction values for flexural strength given by
EC-2 and NZS 3101 were generally lower than the test results, with a
50 [46] mean predicted-tested ratio of 0.83 and 0.87, respectively. The analysis
[24]
Predicted modulus (GPa)

of Burg and Ost [51] showed that the equation’s values were overall
[47] higher than the test’s, with a mean ratio of 1.12. Based on this discus­
[48] sion, HPC’s flexural strength with GnP could be objectively evaluated
45 using the ACI 363.
An iterative nonlinear regression model (Eq (2)) was developed using
a comprehensive range database presented in Table 8. This table reveals
40 that the proposed formula for determining flexural strength showed
reasonably close results to the tested ones with a bias of 6 % and a de­
viation of 19 %. Furthermore, the plot of the predicted-tested values
[Fig. 13] showed that Eq (2) successfully reproduced the results of
35 flexural strength tests conducted on HPC reinforced with nanomaterials.
√̅̅̅̅
(2)
′ Prop ′
fb = 1.156 f c

30
30 35 40
Tested modulus (GPa)
Fig. 12. Prediction capacity of Eq (1).
of ACI 318, fib model code (2010), Wei et al. [39], Zheng et al. [49], and
Philips et al. [50]. With a mean bias (1 − μ) of 5 %, Zheng et al. [49] and
Wei et al. [39] formulas were superior in this table. However, the pre­
dicted values by ACI 318–14 and fib code were higher than the experi­
mental results, with μ of 1.25 and 1.17. However, Philips et al. [50]
predicted values were smaller than experimental results, with μ of 0.91,
suggesting an underestimate by the equation.
4.3. Flexural strength
Using the equations of ACI 363, EC-2, NZS 3101(2006), and Burg and
Ost [51], the predicted flexural strength is shown in Table 7. The ACI
5. Conclusions, limitations, and prospective
45 50 55
In the current study, an assessment of GnP-HPC’s hydration and
mechanical properties under ambient curing conditions was performed.
A number of factors were evaluated in relation to GnP addition to HPC,
including hydration, elasticity modulus, compressive strength, tensile
strength, flexural strength, flexural toughness, and ductility index. The
following are the conclusions that can be drawn from the study’s find­
ings. The outcomes are probably constrained by the testing setup, cir­
cumstances, and mix design described earlier. The fact that the
presented equations are probably relevant to HPC that contains nano-
reinforcement materials is another potential constraint. Additionally,
the presented equations are likely applicable to HPC, including nano-
reinforcement materials, which is another potential constraint.
According to the hydration test findings, the addition of GnP
increased the degree of carbonization of HPC. Additionally, it is clear
that GnP-HPC composites did not develop any new crystalline phases.
The modulus of elasticity, compressive strength, direct tensile strength,

Table 6
The calculated (based on available formulas) and tested tensile strength.
GnP ft Exp
′
ft ACI318
′
ft fib
′
ft Wei
′
ft Zh
′
ft Ph
′
ft ACI318
′
ft fib
′
ft Wei
′
ft Zh
′
ft Ph
′

ft ft ft ft ft
′ Exp ′ Exp ′ Exp ′ Exp ′ Exp

% MPa
Eq. A5 A6 A7 A8 A9

0.00 3.66 4.41 4.10 3.70 3.34 3.20 1.20 1.12 1.01 0.91 0.87
0.02 4.76 4.85 4.65 4.06 3.67 3.52 1.02 0.98 0.85 0.77 0.74
0.05 3.72 4.59 4.33 3.85 3.48 3.33 1.23 1.16 1.03 0.94 0.90
0.10 3.89 4.61 4.36 3.87 3.50 3.35 1.19 1.12 0.99 0.90 0.86
0.30 3.09 4.34 4.03 3.64 3.29 3.15 1.40 1.30 1.18 1.06 1.02
0.50 3.01 4.36 4.05 3.66 3.31 3.17 1.45 1.35 1.22 1.10 1.05
μ 1.25 1.17 1.05 0.95 0.91
σ 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10

Table 7
The calculated (based on available formulas) and tested flexural strength.
GnP fb
′ Exp
fb
′ ACI363
fb
′ EC2
fb
′ NZS
fb
′ Burg
fb
′ ACI363
fb
′ EC2
fb
′ NZS
fb
′ Burg

fb fb fb fb
′ Exp ′ Exp ′ Exp ′ Exp
% (MPa)
Eq. - A10 A11 A12 A13

0.00 6.76 6.69 5.31 5.69 7.33 0.99 0.79 0.84 1.08
0.02 7.65 7.35 6.15 6.26 8.05 0.96 0.80 0.82 1.05
0.05 6.93 6.96 5.65 5.93 7.63 1.00 0.82 0.86 1.10
0.10 7.05 7.00 5.70 5.95 7.67 0.99 0.81 0.84 1.09
0.30 6.01 6.58 5.17 5.60 7.21 1.09 0.86 0.93 1.20
0.50 5.92 6.62 5.22 5.63 7.25 1.12 0.88 0.95 1.22
μ 1.03 0.83 0.87 1.12
σ 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06

705
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

Table 8
The calculated [based on the proposed formula (Eq. (2))] and tested flexural strength.
Mix Nanomaterial fc
′
fb
′ Exp
fb
′ Prop
fb
′ Prop

Ref. No. ID Type (%) MPa fb

′ Exp

This study 1 GnP 0.00 % GnP 0.00 50.6 6.8 8.2 1.22

2 GnP 0.02 % 0.02 61.1 7.7 9.0 1.18

3 GnP 0.05 % 0.05 54.9 6.9 8.6 1.24
4 GnP 0.10 % 0.10 55.4 7.1 8.6 1.22
5 GnP 0.30 % 0.30 48.9 6.0 8.1 1.35
6 GnP 0.50 % 0.50 49.5 5.9 8.1 1.37
[52] 7 S2 NS 0.50 79.8 12.0 10.3 0.86
8 S3 0.75 91.3 12.2 11.0 0.90
9 S4 1.00 86.6 12.1 10.8 0.89
10 S5 1.25 86.0 11.9 10.7 0.90
11 S6 1.50 60.3 10.5 9.0 0.86
[52] 12 S7 Nanoclay 1.00 82.2 11.7 10.5 0.89
13 S8 3.00 108.0 13.5 12.0 0.89
14 S9 5.00 84.1 10.8 10.6 0.98
15 S10 7.00 82.4 10.2 10.5 1.03
16 S11 10.00 72.2 9.1 9.8 1.08
[24] 17 rGO1 rGO 0.03 51.0 6.0 8.3 1.38
18 rGO2 0.05 53.0 6.8 8.4 1.24
19 rGO3 0.07 51.0 5.7 8.3 1.45
[53] 20 CNT0.10 CNT without SP 0.10 52.7 8.6 8.4 0.98
21 CNT0.20 0.20 58.2 9.0 8.8 0.98
22 CNT0.30 0.30 60.3 9.3 9.0 0.97
23 CNT0.40 0.40 61.3 9.4 9.0 0.96
24 CNT0.50 0.50 62.7 7.8 9.2 1.17
[54] 25 M0.25 CNTs 0.25 94.0 11.1 11.2 1.01
26 M0.50 0.50 102.0 13.2 11.7 0.88
27 M0.75 0.75 111.0 14.9 12.2 0.82
μ 1.06
σ 0.19

Table A1
Available predictive formulas for the mechanical properties of concrete.
Reference Equation No
√̅̅̅̅
ACI 318-14 …(A1)
Ec = 4, 730 f c
′

√̅̅̅̅
ACI 363R …(A2)
Ec = 3, 320 f c + 6900
′

EC-2 ( f ′ )0.30 …(A3)

Ec = 22, 000 c
10
√̅̅̅̅
…(A4)
Ec = 2090 f c + 22, 680
′
[44]
√̅̅̅̅
ACI 318 …(A5)
ft ′ = 0.62 f c
′

fib model code ft = 0.3fc

′ ′ 0.667
if fc ≤ 50 MPa
′
…(A6)
(2010) [ ( ′ ′)]
ft ′ = 2.12ln 1 +1.10 fc + Δfc if fc > 50 MPa
′
…
(Δfc = 8 MPa)
′ (A6a)
√̅̅̅̅
…(A7)
ft ′ = 0.52 f c
′
[39]
√̅̅̅̅
…(A8)
ft ′ = 0.47 f c
′
[49]
√̅̅̅̅
…(A9)
ft ′ = 0.45 f c
′
[50]
√̅̅̅̅
…
fb ′ = 0.94 f c
′
[50]
(A10)
EC-2 fb ′ = 0.435(fc ′ − 8)0.6667 …
(A11)
√̅̅̅̅
NZS 3101 (2006) …
fb ′ = 0.80 fc
′

(A12)
√̅̅̅̅
… Fig. 13. Prediction capacity of Eq (2).
fb ′ = 1.03 f c
′
[51]
(A13)
same dosage of GnP. Additionally, the compressive strain and tensile
strain capacities have been improved by 18.22 and 41 %, respectively,
flexural strength, flexural toughness, and ductility index of HPC were
by the GnP inclusion of 0.02 %. The observed improvement in
improved by the inclusion of GnP up to 0.10 %, whereas the afore­
compression properties can be referred to the role of GnP particles,
mentioned properties were decreased by the inclusion of GnP at 0.30
which filled the large pore structure of concrete, resulting in a more
and 0.50 %. For example, GnP of 0.02 % enhanced the modulus of
compact and robust concrete matrix. Besides that, the GnP’s fiber
elasticity, compressive strength, direct tensile strength, and flexural
character as a nano-reinforcement can be the reason for the tensile
strength of HPC by 21.70 %, 20.82 %, 30.05 %, and 13.16 % at 28-days,
properties improvement. Reliable prediction equations were derived to
respectively. Furthermore, the flexural toughness and ductility index of
predict the elastic modulus and flexural strength of HPC incorporating
HPC have been enhanced by 79.9 and 43.10 %, respectively, for the

706
F.I. Ismail et al.
nano-reinforcement. The equations are probably restricted to concrete
with high strength (50 to 120 MPa) and nano-reinforcement. The out­
comes of this study imply that ambient curing for HPC containing GnP
would be a more practical choice than conventional curing
circumstances.
The microstructural properties of HPC-GnP composites under
ambient curing conditions need to be evaluated in future studies. Be­
sides that, it is recommended to investigate the effect of high tempera­
ture on the microstructural, hydration, and mechanical properties of
HPC-GnP under ambient curing conditions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the technologists of the Concrete and
Heavy Structure Laboratory of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for their
assistance in carrying out the experimental work. Further, the first
author would like to acknowledge the financial support from Yayasan
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS under the research grant of 015LC0-
155.
Appendix
(See Table A1).
References
[1] Aıtcin PJC, c.. composites, The durability characteristics of high performance
concrete: a review 2003;25:409–20.
[2] Shah S, Ahmad S. High performance concretes and applications. CRC Press; 1994.
[3] P.-C. Aïtcin, High performance concrete, CRC press1998.
[4] Sobolev K, Gutiérrez MFJACSB. How nanotechnology can change the concrete
world 2005;84(10):14.
[5] Zhao S, Sun W. Nano-mechanical behavior of a green ultra-high performance
concrete. Constr Build Mater 2014;63:150–60.
[6] K. Sobolev, S. Shah, Nanotechnology of concrete: recent developments and future
perspectives, ACI2008.
[7] Vera-Agullo J, Chozas-Ligero V, Portillo-Rico D, García-Casas MJ, Gutiérrez-
Martínez A, Mieres-Royo JM, et al. Mortar and Concrete Reinforced with
Nanomaterials. Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 383–8.
[8] Sanchez F, Zhang L, Ince C. Multi-scale Performance and Durability of Carbon
Nanofiber/Cement Composites. Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer;
2009. p. 345–50.
[9] Du H, Gao HJ, Pang SD. Improvement in concrete resistance against water and
chloride ingress by adding graphene nanoplatelet. Cem Concr Res 2016;83:114–23.
[10] Shamsaei E, de Souza FB, Yao X, Benhelal E, Akbari A, Duan W. Graphene-based
nanosheets for stronger and more durable concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater
2018;183:642–60.
[11] Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Zhang Y, Dubonos SV, et al. Electric
Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films. Science 2004;306(5696):666–9.
[12] Novoselov KS, Geim AK, Morozov SV, Jiang D, Katsnelson MI, Grigorieva IV, et al.
Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene. Nature 2005;438
(7065):197–200.
[13] Wang B, Pang B. Mechanical property and toughening mechanism of water
reducing agents modified graphene nanoplatelets reinforced cement composites.
Constr Build Mater 2019;226:699–711.
[14] Peyvandi A, Soroushian P, Balachandra AM, Sobolev K. Enhancement of the
durability characteristics of concrete nanocomposite pipes with modified graphite
nanoplatelets. Constr Build Mater 2013;47:111–7.
[15] Ganguli S, Roy AK, Anderson DP. Improved thermal conductivity for chemically
functionalized exfoliated graphite/epoxy composites. Carbon 2008;46(5):806–17.
[16] Yu A, Ramesh P, Sun X, Bekyarova E, Itkis ME, Haddon RC. Enhanced thermal
conductivity in a hybrid graphite nanoplatelet–carbon nanotube filler for epoxy
composites. Adv Mater 2008;20(24):4740–4.
[17] Ismail FI, Shafiq N, Abbas YM, Bheel N, Benjeddou O, Ahmed M, et al. Behavioral
assessment of graphene nanoplatelets reinforced concrete beams by experimental,
statistical, and analytical methods. Case Stud Constr Mater 2022;17:e01676.
[18] Li X, Liu YM, Li WG, Li CY, Sanjayan JG, Duan WH, et al. Effects of graphene oxide
agglomerates on workability, hydration, microstructure and compressive strength
of cement paste. Constr Build Mater 2017;145:402–10.
707
Structures 47 (2023) 694–708
[19] Qureshi TS, Panesar DK. Nano reinforced cement paste composite with
functionalized graphene and pristine graphene nanoplatelets. Compos B Eng 2020;
197:108063.
[20] Lv S, Ma Y, Qiu C, Sun T, Liu J, Zhou Q. Effect of graphene oxide nanosheets of
microstructure and mechanical properties of cement composites. Constr Build
Mater 2013;49:121–7.
[21] Yu L, Wu R. Using graphene oxide to improve the properties of ultra-high-
performance concrete with fine recycled aggregate. Constr Build Mater 2020;259:
120657.
[22] Ismail FI, Abbas YM, Shafiq N, Fares G, Osman M, Hussain LA, et al. Investigation
of the Impact of Graphene Nanoplatelets (GnP) on the Bond Stress of High-
Performance Concrete Using Pullout Testing. Materials 2021;14(22):7054.
[23] Dong S, Wang Y, Ashour A, Han B, Ou J. Nano/micro-structures and mechanical
properties of ultra-high performance concrete incorporating graphene with
different lateral sizes. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2020;137:106011.
[24] Jyothimol P, Hazeena R, Issac MT, Mathiazhagan A. Effect of reduced graphene
oxide on the mechanical properties of concrete. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, IOP Publishing 2020:012038.
[25] Metaxa Z. Polycarboxylate based superplasticizers as dispersant agents for
exfoliated graphene nanoplatelets reinforcing cement based materials. Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology Review 2015;8(5):1–5.
[26] Wang Q, Wang J, Lu C-X, Liu B-W, Zhang K, Li C-Z. Influence of graphene oxide
additions on the microstructure and mechanical strength of cement. New Carbon
Mater 2015;30(4):349–56.
[27] Lv S, Liu J, Sun T, Ma Y, Zhou Q. Effect of GO nanosheets on shapes of cement
hydration crystals and their formation process. Constr Build Mater 2014;64:231–9.
[28] Han B, Zhang L, Zeng S, Dong S, Yu X, Yang R, et al. Nano-core effect in nano-
engineered cementitious composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2017;95:100–9.
[29] Matossi F. Vibration frequencies and binding forces in some silicate groups. J Chem
Phys 1949;17(8):679–85.
[30] Li GY, Wang PM, Zhao X. Mechanical behavior and microstructure of cement
composites incorporating surface-treated multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Carbon
2005;43(6):1239–45.
[31] M.a.d.M. Alonso, M. Palacios, F. Puertas,. Effect of polycarboxylate–ether
admixtures on calcium aluminate cement pastes. Part 2: Hydration studies. Ind Eng
Chem Res 2013;52(49):17330–40.
[32] Zhao L, Guo X, Song L, Song Y, Dai G, Liu J. An intensive review on the role of
graphene oxide in cement-based materials. Constr Build Mater 2020;241:117939.
[33] Sun X, Wu Q, Zhang J, Qing Y, Wu Y, Lee S. Rheology, curing temperature and
mechanical performance of oil well cement: Combined effect of cellulose
nanofibers and graphene nano-platelets. Mater Des 2017;114:92–101.
[34] Wang B, Shuang D. Effect of graphene nanoplatelets on the properties, pore
structure and microstructure of cement composites. Mater Express 2018;8(5):
407–16.
[35] Balaji S, Swathika A. Review on mechanical and microstructural properties of
cementitious composites with graphene oxide. Mater Today: Proc 2022;50:2280–7.
[36] Neville A, P.-c.j.m.. Aitcin, structures, High performance concrete—An overview
1998;31(2):111–7.
[37] Zhao L, Guo X, Ge C, Li Q, Guo L, Shu X, et al. Mechanical behavior and toughening
mechanism of polycarboxylate superplasticizer modified graphene oxide
reinforced cement composites. Compos B Eng 2017;113:308–16.
[38] Mokhtar MM, Abo-El-Enein SA, Hassaan MY, Morsy MS, Khalil MH. Mechanical
performance, pore structure and micro-structural characteristics of graphene oxide
nano platelets reinforced cement. Constr Build Mater 2017;138:333–9.
[39] Lin W-T, Cheng A, Huang R, Cheng T-C. A method for testing the strength of
concrete using uniaxial direct tension. J Chin Inst Eng 2013;36(3):295–303.
[40] Meng W, Khayat KH. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete
enhanced with graphite nanoplatelets and carbon nanofibers. Compos B Eng 2016;
107:113–22.
[41] Pan Z, He L, Qiu L, Korayem AH, Li G, Zhu JW, et al. Mechanical properties and
microstructure of a graphene oxide–cement composite. Cem Concr Compos 2015;
58:140–7.
[42] Chen Z, Xu Y, Hua J, Wang X, Huang L, Zhou X. Mechanical Properties and
Shrinkage Behavior of Concrete-Containing Graphene-Oxide Nanosheets. Materials
2020;13(3):590.
[43] Chu H, Zhang Y, Wang F, Feng T, Wang L, Wang D. Effect of Graphene Oxide on
Mechanical Properties and Durability of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
Prepared from Recycled Sand. Nanomaterials 2020;10(9):1718.
[44] Malaikah AS. A Proposed Relationship for the Modulus of Elasticity of High
Strength Concrete Using Local Materials in Riyadh. Journal of King Saud University
- Engineering Sciences 2005;17(2):131–41.
[45] Abreu, Gustavo Braz de et al. Mechanical properties and microstructure of high
performance concrete containing stabilized nano-silica. Matéria (Rio de Janeiro)
[online]. 2017, v. 22, n. 2 [Accessed 21 July 2022] , e11824. Available from:
<https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-707620170002.0156>. Epub 01 June 2017.
ISSN 1517-7076. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-707620170002.0156.
[46] Mirgozar Langaroudi MA, Mohammadi Y. Effect of nano-clay on workability,
mechanical, and durability properties of self-consolidating concrete containing
mineral admixtures. Constr Build Mater 2018;191:619–34.
[47] Hawreen A, Bogas JA. Creep, shrinkage and mechanical properties of concrete
reinforced with different types of carbon nanotubes. Constr Build Mater 2019;198:
70–81.
[48] Amin M, K. Abu el-hassan,. Effect of using different types of nano materials on
mechanical properties of high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater 2015;80:
116–24.
F.I. Ismail et al. Structures 47 (2023) 694–708

[49] Zheng W, Kwan A, Lee P. Direct tension test of concrete. Materials Journal 2001;98
(1):63–71.
[50] Phillips D, Binsheng Z. Direct tension tests on notched and un-notched plain
concrete specimens. Mag Concr Res 1993;45(162):25–35.
[51] R.G. Burg, B.W. Ost, Engineering properties of commercially available high-
strength concretes, 1992.
[52] Mohamed AM. Influence of nano materials on flexural behavior and compressive
strength of concrete. HBRC Journal 2016;12(2):212–25.
[53] Vesmawala GR, Vaghela AR, Yadav KD, Patil Y. Effectiveness of polycarboxylate as
a dispersant of carbon nanotubes in concrete. Mater Today: Proc 2020;28:1170–4.
[54] Naji HF, Khalid NN, Alsaraj WK, Habouh MI, Marchetty S. Experimental
investigation of flexural enhancement of RC beams with multi-walled carbon
nanotubes. Case Stud Constr Mater 2021;14:e00480.

708