Issue 78

C. S. Karadumpa et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 78 (2026) 146-167; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.78.09

To achieve these objectives, eight concrete mixtures were experimentally evaluated for fresh properties, compressive strength, split tensile strength, and flexural strength at 7, 28, and 56 days. Complementary microstructural characterization was performed using SEM, XRD, and EDAX to relate the observed performance trends to hydration-product development and matrix refinement. In addition, a preliminary assessment of the carbon-emission reduction potential associated with the SCM-based binder system was conducted. The findings provide guidance for the development of sustainable, high performance nano-modified concrete suitable for practical structural applications.

Ref. No.

Study (Author, Year)

Materials / Dosage

Key Findings

Limitations / Gaps

General Reviews

GO accelerates hydration; improves strength CNTs best for compressive; CNF/GNP for flexural ↑ 28-day strength; ↓ porosity Optimal ~0.03%; high dosages reduce strength ↑ compressive, tensile, flexural strength Improved durability; refined microstructure Improved bond strength; crack bridging Functionalized CNTs ↑ compressive & flexural ↑ toughness; post-cracking behavior ↑ tensile & flexural; crack bridging Significant CO ₂ reduction ↑ long-term strength; ↓ permeability GO ↑ compressive; GGBS ↑ flowability ↑ early hydration; refined pores ↑ flexural strength; improved crack - bridging ↑ early - age performance; refined hydration/ITZ Improved dispersion; +45% compressive ↑ flexural strength; crack bridging Potential CO ₂ reduction; cost concerns ↑ strength; refined microstructure

Calls for standardized dispersion & long-term studies No hybrid SCM + nano systems

[5]

Wang et al., 2020 Review on GO/graphene

Bhandari et al., 2025

Review: CNT, CNF, GNP, graphene

[6]

GO-Only Studies [10]

Chen et al., 2022 GO + Class F Fly Ash

Mortar-scale; no CNTs No SCMs; no CNTs No SCMs; no CNTs Short-term cycles; no field validation

Gupta et al., 2022

GO (0–0.05%) in M30

[11]

[12]

Hong et al., 2024 GO (0–0.08%)

GO 0.05% under sulfate & freeze–thaw

[13]

Qian et al., 2023

CNT-Only Studies [7]

Hawreen & Bogas, 2018 O’Rear et al., 2023

CNTs in concrete

Workability issues; no SCMs

MWCNTs (pristine vs functionalized) CNT-reinforced paste

[8]

CNT-only; limited durability

Danoglidis et al., 2019 Zhang et al., 2020 Ahmed & Ali, 2023 Kumar & Singh, 2021 Bhojaraju et al., 2021 Li et al., 2019 Huang, J et al., 2021

[14]

Paste-level; no SCMs

No hybrid GO + CNT; limited microstructure

[15]

CNTs + Fly Ash

SCM-Only Studies [16]

GGBS + Fly Ash ternary blends

No nano-modification

Early-age strength penalty; no nanomaterials

GGBS + Fly Ash

[17]

GO + SCM Studies [18]

GGBS + GO

No CNTs; limited durability

[19]

GO in slag binders

Paste-level; no CNTs

CNT + SCM Studies [20]

No SCMs; agglomeration at high CNT content Paste - level only; no concrete - scale validation No GO; no SCM; mortar - level study Different nanomaterial; no GO/CNT No hybrid GO + CNT + SCM system Paste-level; no SCMs

CNTs + cement matrix (MWCNTs) CNTs + slag cement paste

Soares et al., 2020

[21]

Hybrid Nano-Systems (Other than GO + CNT + SCM) [22] Du et al., 2020 GO:CNT (3:2) hybrid

[23]

Fan, J et al., 2024 CNT + PVA fibres

Torres et al., 2023

[24]

Nano-silica + fibres

Sustainability / LCA Studies [24] Torres et al., 2023

LCA of nano-modified concretes

Table 1: Literature summary.

148