materials

Article
Physical Properties of Concrete Containing Graphene
Oxide Nanosheets
Yu-You Wu 1, * , Longxin Que 2 , Zhaoyang Cui 2 and Paul Lambert 3
1 School of Transportation, Civil Engineering and Architecture, Foshan University, Foshan 528000, China
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 61000, China;
[email protected] (L.Q.); [email protected] (Z.C.)
3 Materials and Engineering Research Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 10 April 2019; Accepted: 24 May 2019; Published: 26 May 2019


Abstract: Concrete made from ordinary Portland cement is one of the most widely used construction
materials due to its excellent compressive strength. However, concrete lacks ductility resulting in
low tensile strength and flexural strength, and poor resistance to crack formation. Studies have
demonstrated that the addition of graphene oxide (GO) nanosheet can effectively enhance the
compressive and flexural properties of ordinary Portland cement paste, confirming GO nanosheet
as an excellent candidate for using as nano-reinforcement in cement-based composites. To date,
the majority of studies have focused on cement pastes and mortars. Only limited investigations into
concretes incorporating GO nanosheets have been reported. This paper presents an experimental
investigation on the slump and physical properties of concrete reinforced with GO nanosheets at
additions from 0.00% to 0.08% by weight of cement and a water–cement ratio of 0.5. The study
demonstrates that the addition of GO nanosheets improves the compressive strength, flexural strength,
and split tensile strength of concrete, whereas the slump of concrete decreases with increasing GO
nanosheet content. The results also demonstrate that 0.03% by weight of cement is the optimum
value of GO nanosheet dosage for improving the split tensile strength of concrete.

Keywords: ordinary Portland cement; concrete; physical properties; graphene oxide

1. Introduction
Concrete made from ordinary Portland cement is one of the most widely used construction
materials [1]. As a structural material, concrete is desirable because of its excellent compressive
strength. However, concrete has poor ductility, with low tensile strength and flexural strength,
and poor resistance to crack formation [1]. Many attempts have been made to enhance its properties
and performance by adding supplementary cementitious materials (e.g., fly ash, blast-furnace slag,
etc.) and fibers (e.g., glass and steel), but they fail to adequately enhance its physical properties and
durability at the nanoscale [2,3].
Ordinary Portland cement is the principal binder holding sand and coarse gravels or crushed
rocks together to produce concrete when water is added to initiate the hydration. It is reported that the
global production of cement has exceeded 3600 million tonnes annually with more than 55% from
China since 2011 [4]. The cement industry accounted for 15% to 20% of China’s PM2.5 emissions, 3% to
4% of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 8% to 10% of nitrogen oxides emissions [5], resulting in a drive to
cut air pollution deriving from the cement industry in China.
Advancements in nanotechnology can generate opportunities to improve the properties and
performance of cement by incorporating nanomaterials [6]. Studies have demonstrated that the

Materials 2019, 12, 1707; doi:10.3390/ma12101707 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 1707 2 of 10

addition of 0.05% graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets (by weight of cement) can effectively increase
the compressive strength and flexural strength of ordinary Portland cement paste by 15% to 33%
and 41% to 58%, respectively, and it is suggested that this may be associated with the enhanced
mechanical interlocking, interaction between the microcracks and the GO nanosheets, promotion of
the hydration process, and the formation of powerful interfacial forces between carboxylic groups
and hydration products [7]. Such observations strongly indicate the role of the GO nanosheet can
potentially play in the nano-reinforcement in cement-based composites. To date, the majority of
studies have focused on cement paste and cement mortar, including their physical properties [8,9],
durability [10–13], and rheological behavior [14,15]. Limited results have been reported on the
physical properties of ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC) incorporating with GO nanosheets [16]
and ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) containing graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) [17] and
graphene [18]. Lu and Ouyang [16] demonstrated that the fluidity of UHSC decreased, and its flexural
and compressive strengths improved with the addition of GO nanosheets from 0.00% to 0.03% by
weight of cement. The compressive strength of UHSC incorporating 0.01% at 28 days enhanced by
7.82% compared with that of UHSC without GO nanosheets. Meng and Khayat [17] verified that
when the GNPs content is less than 0.05%, the high-range water reducer (HRWR) demand decreased,
meaning the use of GNPs improved the flowability decrease, whereas an adverse effect on flowability
was obtained with GNPs content greater than 0.05%. And the authors also demonstrated the use of
GNPs did not have a significant effect on the compressive strength of UHPC with an increase of 5.2%
to 5.7% while the use of 0.3% GNPs increased the flexural strength and the tensile strength by 39% to
59% and 40% to 45%, respectively, dependent on the dimension and specific surface area of GNPs.
Dimov and Craciun et al. [18] concluded that the compressive strength and the flexural strength of
UHPC can increase up to 146% and 79.5%, separately. However, it should be noted that relatively
little work has been concerned with ordinary concrete incorporating GO nanosheets. It is, therefore,
apparent that further research in this area is required [3,19,20].
In this study, the effects of GO nanosheets on the slump and physical properties of concrete are
experimentally investigated. The GO nanosheet content is at additions of 0.00%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%,
0.06%, and 0.08% by weight of cement under a water–cement ratio of 0.5. The evaluated physical
properties of concrete include the compressive strength, flexural strength, and split tensile strength.
Additionally, the optimum value of GO nanosheet dosage for improving the split tensile strength of
concrete is also discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) type 42.5R was used for all the concrete mixes, and its chemical
composition is shown in Table 1. Fine aggregate (FA) and coarse aggregate (CA) were natural river
sand with a fineness modulus of 2.74 and crushed quartz with a size range from 5 mm to 20 mm,
respectively. A polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer (PCs) was used to improve the workability
of concrete and was provided by Sichuan Zhaohui Xincheng New Materials and Technology Ltd.,
Chengdu, China. The GO nanosheet was used as a water dispersion solution which was synthesized by
using a modified Hummers method [21] at Chengdu Institute of Organic Chemistry, China Academy of
Sciences, Chengdu, China. The main parameters of the GO nanosheet are shown in Table 2. Figure 1a
shows a transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image of a typical GO nanosheet with wrinkled and
folded features. Figure 1b shows an atomic_force microscope (AFM) image of a typical GO nanosheet
with irregular shapes.
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 3 of 10

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11

Table 1. Chemical composition of cement (% by weight).
Table 1. Chemical composition of cement (% by weight).
Component CaO SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 MgO K2 O Na2 O SO3
Component CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO K2O Na2O SO3
Content (%) 65.16 21.25 4.21 3.35 2.90 0.97 0.50 0.72
Content (%) 65.16 21.25 4.21 3.35 2.90 0.97 0.50 0.72

Table 2. The composition and dimensions of graphene oxide nanosheet.

Table 2. The composition and dimensions of graphene oxide nanosheet.
Items
Items Carbon(%)
Carbon (%) Oxygen (%)
Oxygen (%) The
TheLength/Width
Length/Width(µm)
(μm) Thickness
Thickness(nm)
(nm)
Value
Value range
range 45–60
45–60 40–55
40–55 2–10
2–10 1–1.5
1–1.5

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Images
Figure of typical
1. Images GO GO
of typical nanosheet. (a) transmission
nanosheet. electron
(a) transmission microscopy
electron (TEM),
microscopy (b) atomic
(TEM), (b)
force microscope
atomic (AFM). (AFM).
force microscope

2.2. Concrete Mix and Specimen Preparation

2.2. Concrete Mix and Specimen Preparation
Six concrete mixes were prepared. The concrete mix proportions are shown in Table 3 and are in
Six concrete mixes were prepared. The concrete mix proportions are shown in Table 3 and
accordance with the relevant specification [22] and code [23]. All mixes had a water to cement ratio
are in accordance with the relevant specification [22] and code [23]. All mixes had a water to
(w/c) of 0.5. The GO nanosheets were added to the CGO0, CGO2, CGO3, CGO4, CGO6, and CGO8
cement ratio (w/c) of 0.5. The GO nanosheets were added to the CGO0, CGO2, CGO3, CGO4,
at additions of 0.00%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, 0.06%, and 0.08% by weight of cement. The total water
CGO6, and CGO8 at additions of 0.00%, 0.02%, 0.03%, 0.04%, 0.06%, and 0.08% by weight of
content was 168 kg/m3 , which included the mixing water, GO nanosheet water dispersion solution,
cement. The total water content was 168 kg/m3, which included the mixing water, GO nanosheet
and PCs solution.
water dispersion solution, and PCs solution.
Table 3. Concrete mixture proportions.
Table 3. Concrete mixture proportions.
Total Water Cement FA CA PCs GO GO
Mix ID Total
3 ) Water(kg/m
Cement
3) FA3 ) CA 3 ) PCs 3 ) GO (%) GO(kg/m3 )
Mix ID (kg/m (kg/m (kg/m (kg/m
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3)
GCO0 168 336 626 1270 6.72 0.00 0.0000
GCO0
GCO2 168
168 336336 626
626 1270
1270 6.726.72 0.00 0.02 0.00000.0672
GCO2
GCO3 168
168 336336 626
626 1270
1270 6.726.72 0.02 0.03 0.06720.1008
GCO4
GCO3 168
168 336 336 626
626 1270
1270 6.726.72 0.03 0.04 0.10080.1344
GCO6
GCO4 168
168 336 336 626
626 1270
1270 6.726.72 0.04 0.06 0.13440.2016
GCO8 168 336 626 1270 6.72 0.08 0.2688
GCO6 168 336 626 1270 6.72 0.06 0.2016
GCO8 168 336 626 1270 6.72 0.08 0.2688
Both the fine aggregate (FA) and coarse aggregate (CA) were air dried in the laboratory environment.
CementBothwas first mixed
the fine with the (FA)
aggregate fine aggregate
and coarse in aaggregate
twin shaft(CA)
concrete
weremixer for two
air dried in minutes, and then
the laboratory
theenvironment.
coarse aggregate was was
Cement added before
first mixedmixing for afine
with the further two and
aggregate in aa twin
half minutes at moderate
shaft concrete mixer speed.
for
Thetwopotable mixand
minutes, water was
then thepre-mixed in a separate
coarse aggregate vessel before
was added with the PCs solution
mixing and mechanically
for a further two and a
stirred for one and
half minutes half minutes
at moderate using
speed. Thea potable
hand-mixer, whichwas
mix water waspre-mixed
followed by inadding the vessel
a separate GO nanosheet
with
water
the dispersion
PCs solutionsolution and further stirred
and mechanically stirringfor
forone
another oneminutes
and half and halfusing
minutes at a moderate
a hand-mixer, speed.
which
Thewaspre-mixed
followedsolution wasthe
by adding added
GO to the dry mixed
nanosheet watercement and solution
dispersion aggregates andand then mixed
further stirringfor
fortwo
and a half minutes
another one and at moderate
half minutesspeed. The freshly
at a moderate mixed
speed. Theconcrete
pre-mixedwassolution
poured into
was pre-oiled
added to molds
the
dry mixed cement and aggregates and then mixed for two and a half minutes at moderate speed.
The freshly mixed concrete was poured into pre-oiled molds and compacted on an electric
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 4 of 10
concrete vibration table after which the specimens were covered with a polyethylene sheet and
cured in the laboratory for twenty-four hours. Finally, the specimens were demolded and cured
andatcompacted on an electric
a relative humidity concrete
greater vibration
than 95% and a table after which
temperature of 21the
± 2specimens were covered with a
°C until tested.
polyethylene sheet and cured in the laboratory for twenty-four hours. Finally, the specimens were
demolded and cured
2.3. Physical at aTests
Property relative
andhumidity
Slump Testgreater than 95% and a temperature of 21 ± 2 ◦ C until tested.

The compressive
2.3. Physical Property Testsstrength,
and Slumpflexural
Test strength, and split tensile strength of specimens were
measured on day 7, day 14, and day 28. The concrete specimens were tested in accordance with
The compressive strength, flexural strength, and split tensile strength of specimens were measured
the GB/T50081-2002, Standard for Test Method of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete
on day 7, day 14, and day 28. The concrete specimens were tested in accordance with the GB/T50081-2002,
[24]. The specimens for each test are listed in Table 4. A selection of specimens for compressive
Standard for Test Method of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete [24]. The specimens for
strength test are shown in Figure 2. The loading rate employed was 0.6 MPa/s. It should be
each test are listed in Table 4. A selection of specimens for compressive strength test are shown in
noted that due to the smaller, non-standard size of the specimens used, the results from the
Figure 2. The loading rate employed was 0.6 MPa/s. It should be noted that due to the smaller,
compressive strength, flexural strength, and split tensile strength tests were reduced by
non-standard size of the specimens used, the results from the compressive strength, flexural strength,
multiplying the conversion coefficients of 0.95, 0.85, and 0.85, respectively, according to the
and split tensile strength tests were reduced by multiplying the conversion coefficients of 0.95, 0.85,
GB/T50081-2002 Standard [24]. The slump test was carried out in accordance with the
and 0.85, respectively, according to the GB/T50081-2002 Standard [24]. The slump test was carried out
GB/T50080-2002 Standard [25], which was employed to assess the workability of concrete.
in accordance with the GB/T50080-2002 Standard [25], which was employed to assess the workability
of concrete. Table 4. Size of specimens.

Used 4. Size of specimens.

Size Table Standard
Test Conversion Coefficients
Test
(mm)
Size Used (mm)
Size(mm)
Standard Size (mm) Conversion Coefficients
Compressive strength 100 × 100 × 100 150 × 150 × 150 0.95
Compressive strength 100 × 100 × 100 150 × 150 × 150 0.95
Flexural strength
Flexural strength 100 × 100 ×
100 × 100 × 400400 150 × 150 × 550
150 × 150 × 550 0.850.85
Split
Split tensile
tensile strength 100
strength 100× ×100
100× ×100
100 150150
× 150 × 150
× 150 × 150 0.850.85

Figure 2. Concrete specimens for the compressive strength test.

Figure 2. Concrete specimens for the compressive strength test.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Workability
3.1. Workability
The results obtained from the slump test are shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the values of
The results
slump obtained obtainedspecimens
for concrete from the withslumpGOtest are shown
nanosheets in Figure
(GCO02, GCO3,3. It can be
GCO4, seen and
GCO6, thatGCO8)
the
arevalues of slump
lower than that ofobtained
concretefor concrete
without GOspecimens
nanosheetswith GO nanosheets
(GCO0). (GCO02,
It is also observed GCO3,
that GCO4,
the value of the
GCO6,
slump and GCO8)
of concrete are lower
decreased thanincrease
with the that ofofconcrete
the dosage without
of GOGO nanosheets
nanosheets. (GCO0).
A similar It ishas
result also
also
observed
been reported that
in athe value ofstudy
previous the slump
whereof anconcrete
ultra-high decreased
strengthwith the increase
concrete (UHSC)of the dosage ofGO
incorporating
GO nanosheets.
nanosheets A similar result
was investigated has also
[16]. This maybeen reported
be caused in alarge
by the previous study
surface areawhere
of thean GOultra-high
nanosheet,
strength
resulting in aconcrete
decrease(UHSC) incorporating
in the availability GO in
of water nanosheets wasfrom
the fresh mix investigated [16]. This
wetting [7,16]. may be to
It is possible
causedthe
improve by slump
the largeof surface area ofmixes
conventional the GO bynanosheet,
using fly ash resulting
[15] andin aPCs
decrease in the availability
[26]. However, Meng and
of water
Khayat [17]inverified
the freshinmix from
their studywetting [7,16].the
that when It isGNPs
possible to improve
content is lessthe
thanslump of conventional
0.05%, the high-range
mixes
water by using
reducer fly ashdemand
(HRWR) [15] anddecreased,
PCs [26]. However,
meaning Meng the useandof Khayat
the GNPs [17]improved
verified inthetheir study
flowability
thatUHPC,
of the when the GNPs an
whereas content
adverseis less than
effect on0.05%, the high-range
its flowability water reducer
was obtained with GNPs(HRWR) demand
content greater
decreased,
than 0.05%. This meaning thethat
suggests use the
of the GNPs improved
workability of the UHPC the flowability
is affected of
by the
bothUHPC, whereas
the additive andanthe
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11

Materialsadverse
2019, 12, 1707
effect
on its flowability was obtained with GNPs content greater than 0.05%. 5 ofThis
10
suggests that the workability of the UHPC is affected by both the additive and the GNPs. It is,
therefore, necessary to perform further studies to better understand the influence of GO
GNPs. It is, therefore, necessary to perform further studies to better understand the influence of GO
nanosheets on the workability of ordinary concrete.
nanosheets on the workability of ordinary concrete.

200

190
183

Slump of concrete(mm)
180 176
171
170 168
162
160
154
150

140

130

120
0 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08
Content of GO nanosheet (% by weight of cement )
Figure 3. Slump of concrete.
Figure 3. Slump of concrete.
3.2. Compressive Strength
3.2. Compressive Strength
The results of the compressive strength tests for concrete specimens with ages of 7, 14, and 28 days
The results
under the different GOofcontents
the compressive
are shown strength tests for
graphically inconcrete
Figure 4. specimens
Each value withpresented
ages of 7, is 14,the
and
28 days under the different GO contents are shown graphically
average of three test results. It is observed that the concrete specimens containing the GO nanosheets in Figure 4. Each value
(GCO02, presented
GCO3, GCO4,is theGCO6,
averageGCO8)of three test have
generally results. It iscompressive
higher observed that the compared
strength concrete specimens
with the
containing the GO nanosheets (GCO02, GCO3, GCO4, GCO6, GCO8)
concrete with no addition (GCO0). When the content of GO nanosheets increased from 0.02% to 0.08%, generally have higher
compressive strength compared with the concrete with no addition
the 28-day compressive strength increased from 46.47 MPa to 55.22 MPa, representing an increase from (GCO0). When the content
12.84%of to GO nanosheets
34.08% increasedtofrom
when compared 0.02% tospecimens
the concrete 0.08%, the without
28-day compressive
GO nanosheets strength
(GCO0). increased
This
from 46.47MPa to 55.22MPa, representing an increase from 12.84%
confirms that the compressive strength of the concrete is enhanced by an increase in the content of GOto 34.08% when compared
to thefrom
nanosheets concrete
0.02%specimens
to 0.08% for without GO nanosheets
the water–cement (GCO0).
ratio This confirms
of 0.5. Based that the
on the study on compressive
the cement
strength of the concrete is enhanced by an increase in the content
paste reinforced with GO nanosheets, this may be the result of enhanced mechanical interlocking, of GO nanosheets from 0.02%
to 0.08% for the water–cement ratio of 0.5. Based on the study
intense interaction between the microcracks and the GO nanosheets, promotion of the hydration on the cement paste reinforced
processwith GOformation
or the nanosheets, this may interfacial
of powerful be the result forceofbetween
enhanced mechanical
carboxylic interlocking,
groups and hydrationintense
interaction between the microcracks and the GO nanosheets,
products [7]. For the UHPC enhanced with GNPs, it can be attributed to the “bridging effect” of promotion of the hydration
GNPs forprocess or the formation
microcracks of powerful
and the “filler effect” forinterfacial
accelerating force thebetween
hydration carboxylic
reactions groups
of the and hydration
cementitious
products
materials [17,27].[7]. For the such
However, UHPC enhanced with
a mechanism GNPs,
for the UHSC it can be attributed
incorporating GOto nanosheets
the “bridging waseffect”
not
of GNPs for microcracks and the “filler effect”
fully examined by FE-SEM [16], resulting in further study being required. for accelerating the hydration reactions of the
Thecementitious
trend in thematerials
compressive[17,27]. However,
strength of thesuch a mechanism
concrete specimensfor theage
with UHSC incorporating
is shown in FigureGO 5.
nanosheets was not fully examined by FE-SEM [16], resulting in further
This trend is different from that observed for the UHSC with additions of GO nanosheets in an earlier study being required.
The trend
study [16], where it was in suggested
the compressive
that thestrength
values ofofcompressive
the concretestrength
specimens andwith age strength
flexural is shownofin
concreteFigure
from an5. addition
This trend is different
0.01% were greaterfromthanthatthose
observed
from an foraddition
the UHSC with One
of 0.03%. additions of GO
explanation
nanosheets in an earlier study [16], where it was suggested that the
may be a lower water-cement ratio of 0.2 [16]. However, the compressive strength of concrete is affected values of compressive
by many strength
factors,and
such flexural
as thestrength of concrete
water-cement ratio,from an addition
raw material 0.01%
types, andwere greater than materials
complementary those from
an addition
and admixtures [1].of 0.03%. One explanation may be a lower water-cement ratio of 0.2 [16]. However,
the compressive strength of concrete is affected by many factors, such as the water-cement ratio,
raw material types, and complementary materials and admixtures [1].
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 11

60
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 6 of 10
7 days 14 days 28 days

strength (MPa)
60
50 7 days 14 days 28 days

strength (MPa)
Compressive
50
40

Compressive 40
30
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Content of GO nanosheet (% by weight of cement )
30
Figure 4. Compressive
0.00strength of concrete
0.02 0.04 with varying
0.06 graphene
0.08 oxide
0.10 (GO) content.
Content of GO nanosheet (% by weight of cement )
Figure 4. Compressive strength of concrete with varying graphene oxide (GO) content.
Figure 4. Compressive strength of concrete with varying graphene oxide (GO) content.
60
strength (MPa)

60
50
strength (MPa)
Compressive

50
40
GO=0.00% GO=0.02%
Compressive

GO=0.03% GO=0.04%
40 GO=0.06% GO=0.08%
30
GO=0.00% GO=0.02%
0 7 14 21 28 35
GO=0.03% GO=0.04%
Age(days)
GO=0.06% GO=0.08%
305. Compressive strength of concrete at different ages.
Figure
Figure 5.0Compressive
7 strength
14 of concrete
21 at different
28 ages.
35
3.3. Flexural Strength and Relationship between Compressive Age(days)and Flexural Strength
3.3. Flexural Strength and Relationship between Compressive and Flexural Strength
The flexural strength results
Figure of the concrete
5. Compressive specimens
strength of concrete atat7,different
14, and ages.
28 days under the different
The flexural
GO contents are shownstrength results in
graphically of Figure
the concrete
6. Each specimens at 7, 14, isand
value presented the28 days under
average of threethetest
different
3.3. Flexural
results. GO contents
Strength
It is apparent are
and
that shown graphically
Relationship
the addition ofbetween in Figure
Compressive
GO nanosheets 6. Each value
and Flexural
improves presented
Strength
the flexural is the average of
strength of all concrete
three test results. It is apparent that the addition of GO
specimens with GO nanosheets (GCO2, GCO3, GCO4, GCO6, and GCO8). The flexural strength nanosheets improves the flexural
The of
strength flexural strength
all concrete results ofwith
specimens the concrete specimens at 7, GCO3,
14, andGCO4, 28 daysGCO6,underandthe
enhances in a range from 2.77% to 15.60% atGO nanosheets
28 days when the (GCO2,
content of GO nanosheets increases
differentThe
GCO8). GOflexural
contentsstrength
are shown graphically
enhances in Figure
in a range from 6. Each
2.77%value presented
to 15.60% at 28isdays
the average
when the of
from 0.02% to 0.08%. However, the rate of increase in the flexural strength is generally less than that of
three test results. It is apparent that the addition of GO nanosheets
content of GO nanosheets increases from 0.02% to 0.08%. However, the rate of increase in the improves the flexural
the compressive strength for concrete with GO nanosheet additions from 0.02% to 0.08%. Additionally,
strengthstrength
flexural of all concrete specimens
is generally less thanwiththatGO of nanosheets
the compressive (GCO2, GCO3,
strength forGCO4,
concrete GCO6,
with and
GO
it is also observed that the increasing rate before 14 days is greater compared with that from 14 to
GCO8). The
nanosheet flexural from
additions strength
0.02%enhances
to 0.08%. in Additionally,
a range from it 2.77%
is alsoto observed
15.60% atthat 28 days when the
the increasing
28 days for a given GO nanosheets addition from 0.02% to 0.08%. The trend of the flexural strength of
content
rate of GO
before nanosheets
14 days is greaterincreases
compared from 0.02%
with that to 0.08%.
from 14 toHowever,
28 days for thea rate
givenofGOincrease in the
nanosheets
the concrete specimens versus age at various GO nanosheets additions is shown in Figure 7.
flexural strength is generally less than that of the compressive
addition from 0.02% to 0.08%. The trend of the flexural strength of the concrete specimensstrength for concrete with GO
It is widely accepted that the compressive and flexural strengths of concrete are related.
nanosheet
versus age additions
at various from 0.02% to 0.08%.
GO nanosheets Additionally,
additions is shown in it is also observed
Figure 7. that the increasing
Various empirical relationships for predicting the flexural strength have been proposed, such as
rate before 14 days is greater compared with that from 14 to
It is widely accepted that the compressive and flexural strengths of concrete 28 days for a given GOarenanosheets
related.
the European [28] and China [29] codes. Table 5 shows the values of flexural strength and compressive
additionempirical
Various from 0.02% to 0.08%. for
relationships Thepredicting
trend of the the flexural
flexural strength
strength of have thebeen
concrete specimens
proposed, such
strength of the concrete specimens at 28 days, which were obtained from both the current experimental
versus age at various GO nanosheets additions is shown in Figure
as the European [28] and China [29] codes. Table 5 shows the values of flexural strength and 7.
study and the predicted models. It is apparent that there are differences between the experimental and
It is widely
compressive accepted
strength of thethat the compressive
concrete specimens at and 28 flexural
days, which strengths of concrete
were obtained areboth
from related.
the
predicted values, most notably with those in EC-02, as illustrated in Figure 8 and Table 5.
Various empirical relationships for predicting the flexural strength have been proposed, such
Empirical models for predicting the flexural strength of concrete containing GO nanosheets based
as the European [28] and China [29] codes. Table 5 shows the values of flexural strength and
on its compressive strength have not been reported in previous studies. Building on the experimental
compressive strength of the concrete specimens at 28 days, which were obtained from both the
 between the experimental and predicted values, most notably with those in EC-02, as illustrated
incurrent
Figureexperimental
8 and Table 5.study and the predicted models. It is apparent that there are differences
between the experimental
Empirical and predicted
models for predicting values, strength
the flexural most notably with those
of concrete in EC-02,
containing GOas illustrated
nanosheets
in Figure 8 and Table 5.
based on its compressive strength have not been reported in previous studies. Building on the
Empirical
experimental models
data forflexural
of the predicting
andthe flexural strength
compressive of concrete
strengths listed incontaining GO nanosheets
Table 5, and fitting the
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 7 of 10
data (see Figure 8), an empirical function with coefficients of determination r = 0.9345onwas
based on its compressive strength have not been reported in previous studies. Building
2 the
experimental data of the flexural and compressive strengths listed in Table 5, and fitting the
developed:
datadata (seeflexural
of the Figure and
8), an empirical function
compressive strengthswith coefficients
listed in Table 5,ofanddetermination r2 =(see
fitting the data 0.9345 was8),
Figure
developed: f f = 0.076 f c + 23.0612 (1)
an empirical function with coefficients of determination r = 0.9345 was developed:
where fc is the compressive strength at 28 = 0.076
f f days and ff is+the3.0612
flexural strength at 28 days. It should
(1)
ff = 0.076 fc + c3.0612 (1)
be noted that this relationship may be subject to update when more data become available.
where fc is the compressive strength at 28 days and ff is the flexural strength at 28 days. It should
where fc is the
be noted compressive
that strength
this relationship mayat be
28 subject
days and ff is the when
to update flexural strength
more at 28 days.
data become It should be
available.
noted that this relationship 8may be subject to update when more data become available.
7 days 14 days 28 days
8
(MPa)(MPa)
7 days 14 days 28 days
7
strength

7
strength
Flexural

6
Flexural

5
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Content
5 of GO nanosheet (% by weight of cement )
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Content
Figure 6. Flexural of GO of
strength nanosheet (% by weight
concrete containing of cement
varying )
GO content.
Figure 6. Flexural strength of concrete containing varying GO content.
Figure 6. Flexural strength of concrete containing varying GO content.
8
(MPa)(MPa)

8
7
strength

7
strength

6
Flexural

6
Flexural

5 GO=0.00% GO=0.02%
GO=0.03% GO=0.04%
5 GO=0.06%
GO=0.00% GO=0.08%
GO=0.02%
4 GO=0.03% GO=0.04%
0 7 14 GO=0.06%
21 GO=0.08% 35
28
4 Age(days)
0 7 14 21 28 35
Figure 7. Flexural strength of concrete at different ages.
Figure 7. Flexural strength Age(days)
of concrete at different ages.

Figure 7. 2 1
Table 5. Flexural
Table strength
5. Flexural strength of Flexural
of concrete from
concretestrength
from of current
the current
the concrete at different
study and
studyas and ages.
predicted
as by models
predicted by (N/mm
models ) .
(N/mm2)1.
Table 5. Flexural of concrete from the currentFlexural
strengthStrength
Compressive study andStrength (ff )
as predicted by models
Mix ID 2 1 EC-02 [28] China Code [29]
(N/mm ) . on Day 28 (fc )
Present Study
f f = 0.201fc f f = 0.435 fc 0.713
GCO0 41.18 6.26 8.28 6.16
GCO2 46.47 6.43 9.34 6.72
GCO3 47.44 6.50 9.54 6.82
GCO4 50.16 6.77 10.08 7.09
GCO6 52.37 7.11 10.53 7.31
GCO8 55.22 7.24 11.10 7.60
1 fc = compressive strength at 28 days. f f = flexural strength at 28 days.
 GCO3 47.44 6.50 9.54 6.82
GCO4 50.16 6.77 10.08 7.09
GCO6 52.37 7.11 10.53 7.31
GCO8 55.22 7.24 11.10 7.60
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 fc = compressive strength at 28 days. ff = flexural strength at 28 days. 8 of 10

12
Experimental Data from Present Study
11 Predicted Values from EC-02 Model

FLEXURAL STRENGTH(MPa)
Predicted Values from China Code

10

7
ff= 0.076fc + 3.0162
R² = 0.9345
6
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH(MPa)

Figure 8. Relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength of concrete.

Figure 8. Relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength of concrete.
3.4. Split Tensile Strength
3.4. Split Tensile Strength
The split tensile strength results for the concrete specimens at 7, 14, and 28 days are shown in
Table 6The andsplit tensile
Figure strength
9. Each results
value for theis
presented concrete specimens
the average at 7,test
of three 14, results.
and 28 daysThe are shown
results show
in Table 6 and Figure 9. Each value presented is the average of three test
that the split tensile strength of the specimens with a water-cement ratio of 0.5 generally increasesresults. The results
show
with that the GO
increasing splitnanosheets
tensile strength
contentof from
the specimens with a It
0.02% to 0.08%. water-cement
can also be seen ratiothat
of 0.5
thegenerally
split tensile
increases with increasing GO nanosheets content from 0.02% to
strength of the concrete increases when the GO nanosheet dosage increases from 0.0% to 0.08%. It can also be0.03%,
seen that
which
the split tensile strength of the concrete increases when the GO nanosheet dosage
is followed by a gradual decrease of such strength with the increasing GO nanosheet dosage from 0.04% increases from
to 0.0%
0.08%.to Furthermore,
0.03%, which is it followed
is observed by that
a gradual decrease
the split tensileofstrength
such strength with the
of concretes increasing
with GO
GO nanosheet
nanosheet
content dosage
of 0.02% andfrom
0.06% 0.04% to 0.08%. Furthermore,
are comparable. it is observed
It is important to note thatthat the
the split tensile
concrete strength
specimen with a
of concretes with GO nanosheet content of 0.02% and 0.06% are comparable.
GO nanosheet dosage of 0.03% (GCO3) shows the greatest enhancement, indicating that 0.03% is It is important to the
note that the concrete specimen with a GO nanosheet dosage of 0.03%
optimum value of GO nanosheet dosage for improving the split tensile strength of concrete with a (GCO3) shows the
greatest enhancement,
water-cement ratio of 0.5.indicating that 0.03% is the optimum value of GO nanosheet dosage for
improving the split tensile strength of concrete with a water-cement ratio of 0.5.
Table 6. Split tensile strength of concrete with varying GO nanosheet contents.
Table 6. Split tensile strength of concrete with varying GO nanosheet contents.
Split Tensile Strength (MPa) Increase at
Mix ID GO (%)
Mix ID 7 Days Tensile
Split
GO (%)
Strength28(MPa)
14 Days Days Increase
28 Days (%) at
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 28 Days (%)
GCO0 0.00 1.98 2.35 2.62 0.00
GCO0 GCO2 0.000.02 1.98
2.43 2.35
2.77 2.62
3.04 16.180.00
GCO2 GCO3 0.020.03 2.43
2.58 2.77
2.98 3.04
3.27 24.8116.18
GCO3 GCO4 0.030.04 2.45
2.58 2.81
2.98 3.11
3.27 18.7524.81
Materials 2019,
GCO4 4CO6
12, x FOR PEER 0.06
REVIEW
0.04 2.41
2.45 2.76
2.81 3.04
3.11 15.9518.75 9 of 11
GCO8 0.08 2.32 2.72 3.01 14.79
4CO6 0.06 2.41 2.76 3.04 15.95
GCO8 0.08 2.32 2.72 3.01 14.79
4
Split tensile strength (MPa)

7 days 14 days 28 days

1
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Content of GO nanosheet (% by weight of cement )
Figure 9. Split tensile strength of concrete at different ages.
Figure 9. Split tensile strength of concrete at different ages.

4. Conclusions
The present study has led to the following conclusions:
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 9 of 10

4. Conclusions
The present study has led to the following conclusions:
(1) The slump of concrete containing GO nanosheets decreases with the addition of GO nanosheets
from 0.02% to 0.80% by weight of cement under a water to cement ratio of 0.5. However,
the workability of concrete is affected by both the additive and the GNPs. Therefore, further study
is needed to better understand the influence of GO nanosheets on the workability of concrete.
(2) The compressive strength of the concrete is enhanced by an increase at the level of GO nanosheets
from 0.02% to 0.08% for the water–cement ratio of 0.5. It may be associated with many factors,
such as the promotion of the hydration process, the “bridging effect” of GO nanosheets for
microcracks, etc. This will be subjected to further examination by SEM.
(3) The addition of GO nanosheets improves the flexural strength of concrete in a range from 2.77%
to 15.60% at 28 days when the content of GO nanosheets increases from 0.02% to 0.08%. However,
the rate of increase in the flexural strength is generally less than that of the compressive strength.
(4) The split tensile strength of the specimens with a water–cement ratio of 0.5 generally increases
with increasing GO nanosheets content. The results also indicate that 0.03% is the optimum value
of GO nanosheet dosage for improving the split tensile strength of the concrete specimens with a
water–cement ratio of 0.5.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.-Y.W. and P.L.; methodology, Y.-Y.W., L.Q., Z.C., P.L.; formal analysis,
Y.-Y.W., L.Q., Z.C., P.L.; investigation, Y.-Y.W., L.Q., Z.C.; resources, Y.-Y.W.; data curation, Y.-Y.W., L.Q., Z.C.;
writing—original draft preparation, Y.-Y.W., P.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.-Y.W., P.L.; supervision, Y.-Y.W.,
P.L.; project administration, Y.-Y.W.; funding acquisition, Y.-Y.W.
Funding: This research was funded by Foshan University, grant number GG040995.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Foshan
University, China. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of authors and not necessarily of the Foshan
University, China.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J. Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY, USA, 2006.
2. Václavík, V.; Dvorský, T.; Šimíček, V.; Ondová, M.; Valíček, J.; Kušnerová, M.; Gola, L. Steel slag as a substitute
for natural aggregate in the production of concrete. Solid State Phenom. 2016, 244, 77–87. [CrossRef]
3. Shamsaei, E.; de Souza, F.B.; Yao, X.; Benhelal, E.; Akbari, A.; Duan, W.H. Graphene-based nanosheets for
stronger and more durable concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 183, 642–660. [CrossRef]
4. U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries, Cement Statistics and Information. 2019. Available
online: https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/ (accessed on 15 February 2019).
5. Zhang, C. China’s Cement Industry Could Crack as Tougher Environmental Laws Bite. 2015. Available
online: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/ (accessed on 15 August 2018).
6. Sanchez, F.; Sobolev, K. Nanotechnology in concrete—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2060–2071.
[CrossRef]
7. Pan, Z.; He, L.; Qiu, L.; Korayem, A.H.; Li, G.; Zhu, J.W.; Collins, F.; Li, D.; Duan, W.H.; Wang, M.C.
Mechanical properties and microstructure of a graphene oxide-cement composite. Cement Concr. Compos.
2015, 58, 140–147. [CrossRef]
8. 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, 121–127. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, Q.; Xu, Q.; Yu, Q.; Gao, R.; Tong, T. Experimental investigation on mechanical and piezoresistive
properties of cementitious materials containing graphene and graphene oxide nanoplatelets. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2016, 127, 565–576. [CrossRef]
10. Mohammed, A.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Duan, W.H.; Nazari, A. Incorporating graphene oxide in cement composites:
A study of transport properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 341–347. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 1707 10 of 10

11. Lv, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, L.; Jia, C. Preparation of Cement Composites with Ordered Microstructures via Doping
with Graphene Oxide Nanosheets and an Investigation of Their Strength and Durability. Materials 2016, 9,
924. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Tong, T.; Fan, Z.; Liu, Q.; Wang, S.; Tan, S.; Yu, Q. Investigation of the effects of graphene and graphene oxide
nanoplatelets on the micro- and macro-properties of cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106,
102–114. [CrossRef]
13. Mohammed, A.; Sanjayan, J.G.; Duan, W.H.; Nazari, A. Graphene Oxide Impact on Hardened Cement
Expressed in Enhanced Freeze–Thaw Resistance. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2016, 28, 04016072. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Lv, C.-x.; Cui, X.-y.; Li, S.-y.; Wang, X. Rheological behaviour of fresh cement pastes with
a graphene oxide additive. New Carbon Mater. 2016, 31, 574–584. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Q.; Cui, X.; Wang, J.; Li, S.; Lv, C.; Dong, Y. Effect of fly ash on rheological properties of graphene
oxide cement paste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 138, 35–44. [CrossRef]
16. Lu, L.; Ouyang, D. Properties of cement mortar and ultra-high strength concrete incorporating graphene
oxide nanosheets. Nanomaterials 2017, 7, 187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Meng, W.; Khayat, K.H. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete enhanced with graphite
nanoplatelets and carbon nanofibers. Compos Part B 2016, 107, 113–122. [CrossRef]
18. Dimov, D.; Amit, I.; Gorrie, O.; Barnes, M.D.; Townsend, N.; Neves, A.S.; Withers, F.; Russo, S.; Craciun, M.F.
Ultrahigh Performance Nanoengineered Graphene–Concrete Composites for Multifunctional Applications.
Adv. Funct. Mater. 2018, 28, 1705183. [CrossRef]
19. Xu, Y.; Zeng, J.; Chen, W.; Jin, R.; Li, B.; Pan, Z. A holistic review of cement composites reinforced with
graphene oxide. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 171, 291–302. [CrossRef]
20. Yang, H.; Cui, H.; Tang, W.; Li, Z.; Han, N.; Xing, F. A critical review on research progress of graphene/cement
based composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2017, 102, 273–296. [CrossRef]
21. Marcano, C.D.; Kosynkin, D.V.; Berlin, J.M.; Sinitskii, A.; Sun, Z.Z.; Slesarev, A.; Alemany, L.B.; Lu, W.;
Tour, J.M. Improved synthesis of graphene oxide. ACS Nano 2010, 4, 4806–4814. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Specification for Mix Proportion Design of Ordinary Concrete; JGJ 55-2011; National Standard of China: Beijing,
China, 2011. (In Chinese)
23. Code for Durability Design of Concrete Structures; GB T22923-2008; National Standard of China: Beijing, China,
2008. (In Chinese)
24. Standard for Test Method of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete; GB/T 50081-2002; National Standard of
China: Beijing, China, 2002. (In Chinese)
25. Standard for Test Method of Performance on Ordinary Fresh Concrete; GB/T 50080-2002; National Standard of
China: Beijing, China, 2002. (In Chinese)
26. Collins, F.; Lambert, J.; Duan, W.H. The influences of admixtures on the dispersion, workability, and strength
of carbon nanotube-PC paste mixtures. Cement Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 201–207. [CrossRef]
27. Han, B.; Sun, S.; Ding, S.; Zhang, L.; Yu, X.; Ou, J. Review of nanocarbon-engineered multifunctional
cementitious composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2015, 70, 69–81. [CrossRef]
28. Beeby, A.W.; Naranayan, R.S. Designers Handbook to Eurocode 2 Part I: Design of Concrete Structures;
Thomas Telford Services Ltd.: London, UK, 1995.
29. Specifications of Cement Concrete Pavement Design for Highway; JTG 40-2002; National Standard of China:
Beijing, China, 2002. (In Chinese)

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).