Role of electrostatic potential energy in carbon nanotube augmented cement paste matrix

Muhammad Azeem; Muhammad Azhar Saleem

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 19 references

Role of electrostatic potential energy in carbon nanotube augmented cement paste matrix

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Carbon nanotubes strengthen cement by electrostatic charge, not by bridging cracks, with a 0.2 wt% dose raising compressive strength up to 25% while 0.4 wt% weakens it.

desk verdict New electrostatic story for CNT-cement strength, but the DFT is too crude and the data scatter is large; the mechanism claim doesn't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05213 v1 pith:U4RYKMSW submitted 2019-08-11 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Muhammad Azeem , Muhammad Azhar Saleem This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords carbonnanotubescementpastecompressivestrengthelectrostaticpotentialdensityfunctionaltheoryion-dipoleinteractioncalciumhydroxidecrackbridging

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that carbon nanotubes (CNTs) make cement paste stronger through electrostatic potential energy rather than through the commonly assumed crack-bridging mechanism. The authors report that a 0.2 wt% addition of CNTs improves the yield point by up to 25%, with carboxyl-functionalized CNTs giving the largest 28-day compressive-strength gain (about 24% over plain paste), while 0.4 wt% leaves the paste weaker than the control. They back this with density functional theory, which shows that a strained CNT segment develops a large dipole moment, nearly 8 D, that interacts with the Ca(OH)2 in hydrated cement through a long-range ion-dipole force. If correct, the paper turns CNT dosage and functionalization into knobs for tuning interfacial charge rather than mechanical fiber bridging.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dipole moment induced in a geometrically strained CNT segment. In perfect geometry the tube's net charge and dipole are nearly zero, but stress from adjoining crystallites creates a charge imbalance and a dipole of almost 8 D. The paper computes this with density functional theory using the ωB97X-D functional and 6-31G* basis set, which map the electrostatic potential surface of the CNT and of Ca(OH)2; it also uses the FTIR signal near 3418 cm−1 as experimental evidence that Ca(OH)2 symmetry is broken in the paste. These pieces together carry the claim that a long-range ion-dipole interaction, not mechanical bridging, is the strengthening mechanism.

What would settle it

Measure the 28-day compressive strength of 0.2 wt% CNT paste after consuming Ca(OH)2 with silica fume (or after wet curing in high-ionic-strength solutions): if the enhancement survives, the Ca(OH)2 ion-dipole mechanism cannot be the sole source. Equivalently, recompute the CNT–Ca(OH)2 interaction with an implicit solvent of dielectric constant ~80 and Debye screening; if the binding energy falls to thermal energies, the long-range electrostatic claim as stated is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the strength enhancement in cement–CNT composites is "the courtesy of electrostatic potential energy." XRD shows no new reaction products; SEM shows hydrated crystals growing at CNT sites without visible bridges; FTIR shows the symmetric Ca(OH)2 becoming asymmetric in the paste; and DFT maps a charge imbalance in a stressed CNT segment that creates a dipole of nearly 8 D. The resulting ion-dipole interaction between the negatively charged nanotube surface and Ca(OH)2 acts at long range because the exothermic hydration process raises the entropy of the crystallites. This explains why 0.2 wt% CNTs strengthen the matrix and 0.4 wt% weakens it: the higher loading shifts the balance from ion-dipole to dipole-dipole interactions between neighboring CNTs.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that Ca(OH)2 is the major compound in the hydrated paste and that a gas-phase DFT cluster of a stressed CNT plus Ca(OH)2 represents the dominant interaction, even though the load-bearing phase of hydrated cement is C-S-H gel and the pore solution is a salty electrolyte that screens long-range charges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At 0.2 wt% CNTs, all three tested types raise the 28-day compressive strength of cement paste, with COOH-functionalized CNTs producing the largest gain (75.1 MPa vs 60.4 MPa for the control).
At 0.4 wt%, OH- and COOH-functionalized CNT specimens fall below the control strength, so the CNT dose–response is non-monotonic.
Because XRD shows no new phases, no chemical reaction product is responsible; any design rule should target the physical charge state of the CNT surface.
The active form of the nanotube is the deformed, strained one, so dispersion methods that preserve or create surface strain may be more relevant than those that maximize straight-tube bridging.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the mechanism is electrostatic, the high ionic strength and high dielectric constant of real cement pore water should screen the ion-dipole force; the vacuum-scale 8 D dipole may therefore overestimate the actual interaction, and the model's predictive power depends on including such screening.
The model takes Ca(OH)2 as the major compound, but the main binding phase of hydrated Portland cement is C-S-H gel; extending the calculation to a C-S-H surface would test whether the same charge mechanism operates there.
A direct test would be to add a pozzolan (silica fume) to consume portlandite while keeping CNT loading at 0.2 wt%; if the strength gain disappears, the Ca(OH)2 ion-dipole channel is confirmed as the cause.
The entropy argument is qualitative; a quantitative balance of hydration enthalpy, entropic ordering, and electrostatic binding energy could turn this into a predictive model of optimum CNT loading.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper makes a clear break from the usual crack-bridging story: it says CNTs strengthen cement paste through electrostatic (ion-dipole) interactions, with a sweet spot at 0.2 wt% and a decline at 0.4 wt%. That is genuinely a different mechanism, and the authors back it with a 48-specimen compressive strength series plus SEM, Raman, FTIR, and XRD. The experimental reporting is transparent—every individual cube value is in the tables—and the consistent drop at higher loading across pristine, -OH, and -COOH tubes is an interesting empirical result. The XRD showing no new phases is a useful negative finding.

But the central mechanism claim does not hold. The DFT model is a gas-phase cluster of Ca(OH)2 and an unspecified 'stressed' CNT segment. No strain magnitude, no interaction energy, no distance dependence. An 8 D dipole moment tells you nothing about whether the force is strong enough to raise compressive strength by 25%. The ion-dipole to dipole-dipole crossover at 0.4 wt% is asserted, not derived. And the model targets Ca(OH)2 as 'the major compound' in the paste—that is wrong; C-S-H is the main binding phase, and the pore solution is a high-ionic-strength electrolyte with Debye length around 1 nm, so long-range electrostatics are screened.

The data are also shakier than the text admits. Control 28-day cubes range 48.44-71.56 MPa. The 0.2 wt% COOH-CNT average (75.1 MPa) is above the control range, so that comparison is probably real; but the 0.2 wt% pristine average (72.2) overlaps the control range, and the 0.4 wt% 'negative effect' for OH and COOH tubes (53.0 and 57.7 MPa) sits within control scatter. No error bars, no significance tests. The entropy argument in the abstract is thermodynamically muddled: exothermic hydration does not make electrostatic forces long range.

The empirical trend—0.2 wt% helps, 0.4 wt% hurts—is plausible and worth a footnote in the field, but as a mechanistic paper this is not convincing. I would not cite the mechanism, and the claim as stated is unsupported. Still, I'd send it to review rather than desk reject it: the question matters, the authors are transparent about their data, and a serious referee could push them to either do real interaction calculations (with screening) or reframe the paper as a hypothesis-generating study. My own verdict is skeptical—reject in current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports compressive strength measurements of cement paste specimens containing 0.2 and 0.4 wt% pristine, hydroxyl-functionalized, and carboxyl-functionalized carbon nanotubes (CNTs), tested at 7 and 28 days. It also presents density functional theory (DFT) calculations with the ωB97X-D functional and 6-31G* basis set for a Ca(OH)2 molecule and a CNT segment, from which it infers that strength enhancement at 0.2 wt% arises from a long-range ion-dipole electrostatic interaction between Ca(OH)2 and strained CNT segments (dipole moment nearly 8 D), while the strength decline at 0.4 wt% is attributed to a crossover to dipole-dipole interactions. The paper claims this electrostatic mechanism, rather than the conventional crack-bridging/pore-filling picture, explains the observed strength changes.

Significance. If quantitatively established, the proposed electrostatic mechanism would challenge the prevailing crack-bridging explanation for CNT reinforcement in cement and could guide the design of nano-modified cementitious materials. The paper includes an original experimental dataset and DFT calculations, and it correctly notes that XRD shows no new chemical compounds formed in the CNT-mixed pastes. However, the theoretical model stops at qualitative statements about dipole moments and does not compute any interaction energy, force, or distance dependence, while the experimental data lack statistical characterization. As a result, the central mechanistic claim remains a hypothesis rather than a supported conclusion.

major comments (4)

[Section 4] The DFT model computes only equilibrium geometries, electrostatic potential surfaces, and dipole moments; it reports no interaction energy, potential energy curve, or force between the CNT segment and Ca(OH)2. The claim of a 'very strong long range intermolecular force' is therefore not substantiated by any calculated quantity. A dipole moment of ~8 D alone does not establish the magnitude or range of the ion-dipole interaction required to raise the 28-day compressive strength by about 25%.
[Section 4] The modeling premise states 'Since the Ca(OH)2 is the major compound found in the cement paste, therefore its interaction with a pristine CNT was modeled.' This is contradicted by the paper's own XRD data (Fig. 11), which identifies portlandite, larnite, and ettringite as main hydrate phases without quantifying their relative abundances, and by the well-established fact that C-S-H gel, not portlandite, is the dominant binding phase in hydrated Portland cement. In addition, the cement pore solution is a high-ionic-strength electrolyte with a Debye length on the order of 1 nm, so long-range electrostatic interactions would be screened; the model does not address this screening.
[Section 3.1, Table 2] The 28-day control compressive strength is reported as an average of 60.40 MPa, but the three replicate values are 48.44, 61.20, and 71.56 MPa, a spread of about 23 MPa. No error bars or statistical significance tests are reported anywhere in the paper. Under these conditions, the claimed 24% enhancement for 0.2 wt% COOH-CNTs (75.13 MPa vs 60.40 MPa) is not robust; comparing against the strongest control replicate (71.56 MPa), the enhancement is only about 5%. All percentage improvements quoted in Section 3.1 require propagation of the replicate scatter.
[Section 4, final paragraph] The explanation for the 0.4 wt% strength decline—that increased CNT concentration enhances dipole-dipole interactions between adjacent CNTs and reduces ion-dipole interaction density—is asserted without derivation. No calculation, model, or experimental measurement is presented that shows a concentration-dependent crossover from ion-dipole to dipole-dipole interactions. This is a post hoc narrative that is not connected to the DFT results or to any quantitative estimate of interaction energies at the two concentrations.

minor comments (7)

[Title page] The affiliation contains a typo: 'APplied Physics' should be 'Applied Physics.'
[Figure 8 caption] The word 'fucntionalized' is misspelled; it should be 'functionalized.'
[Figure 9 caption] The caption reads '(at) 7 days old' where 'at' appears to be a typo for 'a' or should be deleted.
[Tables 2 and 3] Units are inconsistently written as 'Mpa' in Table 3 and 'MPa' in Table 2 and the text; please standardize.
[Section 4, last sentence] The sentence 'This is the reason that the increased concentration of CNTs in the cement paste has a negative effect on its.' is incomplete; the intended word 'strength' is missing at the end.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 presents a bar chart of average compressive strengths without error bars, error propagation, or specimen-type labels on the horizontal axis, which makes the quantitative comparison difficult to assess.
[Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states a 25% improvement in yield point, while the text and Table 3 report 24% for the best case (0.2 wt% COOH-CNTs, 75.13 MPa vs 60.40 MPa); these numbers should be consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the DFT electrostatic model is independent of the measured compressive strengths, so the central claim does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain separates experimental compressive-strength measurements from independent quantum-chemical calculations. The DFT calculations of the Ca(OH)2 molecule, pristine CNT segment, and stressed CNT segment are not fitted to the strength data, and no parameter is extracted from the experiments and then renamed as a prediction. The claim that a stressed CNT develops a dipole moment of nearly 8 D is a computed output of a chosen model geometry, not an input assumed to prove the mechanism. The explanation for the strength decline at 0.4 wt% CNT loading, via a switch from ion-dipole to dipole-dipole interactions, is asserted rather than derived quantitatively, and the premise that Ca(OH)2 is the major hydrate phase in the cement paste is an unsupported physical assumption; but these are correctness risks, not circularity. The paper does not rely on self-citations for load-bearing claims, and it does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or smuggle in an ansatz through prior work. Because the core empirical result (strength enhancement at 0.2 wt%) and the theoretical model are independent bodies of evidence, the derivation is self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions that are either incorrect or unverified. The most important is the mischaracterization of Ca(OH)2 as the major hydrated phase, which directs the theoretical model away from C-S-H. The DFT model is a vacuum cluster calculation with an unspecified strained CNT geometry, ignoring aqueous ionic screening. The entropy argument is thermodynamically dubious. No free parameters are fitted to the strength data, and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Ca(OH)2 is the major component of the hydrated cement paste.
Invoked in the Introduction and Section 4 to justify modeling CNT interaction with Ca(OH)2 alone. In hydrated Portland cement, C-S-H gel is the dominant binding phase; portlandite (Ca(OH)2) is a secondary product, so the model may not represent the main load-bearing matrix.
domain assumption A gas-phase DFT cluster model of Ca(OH)2 and a CNT segment represents the electrostatic environment inside cement paste.
Section 4 uses omegaB97X-D/6-31G* on isolated molecules; the cement pore solution is a high-ionic-strength electrolyte that screens electrostatic interactions, and water, C-S-H, sulfate, and aluminate phases are omitted.
ad hoc to paper Strain applied by neighboring crystallites gives CNTs a large dipole moment of about 8 D.
Fig. 15 shows a 'stressed segment' but the strain magnitude is unspecified; the 8 D value is presented without derivation or experimental check, and it is essential for the ion-dipole mechanism.
domain assumption Exothermic hydration increases the entropy of the composite system and thereby extends the range of electrostatic interactions.
Section 4 and Conclusions assert this repeatedly; exothermic hydration typically reduces the entropy of water molecules when they are bound, and the claim is not supported by any thermodynamic calculation.
domain assumption The broad FTIR signal at 3418 cm^-1 indicates asymmetry of Ca(OH)2 induced by CNTs.
Section 3.3 interprets the 3418 cm^-1 band as evidence of non-zero dipole in Ca(OH)2; however, O-H stretching of adsorbed water or surface hydroxyls also occurs in this region, and no control with pure water is shown.
domain assumption XRD patterns indicate no chemical reactions between CNTs and cement phases.
The authors infer from identical XRD traces that no new compounds form; XRD is insensitive to amorphous phases and minor surface functionalization, so this does not rigorously exclude chemical interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Role of electrostatic potential energy in carbon nanotube augmented cement paste matrix." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4RYKMSW

@misc{pith2026190805213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Role of electrostatic potential energy in carbon nanotube augmented cement paste matrix},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4RYKMSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05213}
}

read the original abstract

The empirical data in conjunction with the quantum mechanical calculations show that the strength enhancement in the cement-carbon nanotubes (CNTs) composites is the courtesy of electrostatic potential energy. This is contrary to the general belief that the CNTs form bridges between the adjacent grains to slow down the breaking process. The yield point for the cement paste is improved up to 25% when prepared with 0.2 % by weight of various types of CNTs. A significant strength enhancement is observed with carboxyl functionalized (COOH) CNTs compared to other types. Further, an increase in the concentration of CNTs up to 0.4 wt% has a negative effect on the strength of the matrix. The electrostatic potential energy is mapped by using density functional theory (DFT) with {\omega}B97X-D functional. At lower concentration of CNTs, ion-dipole interaction in the cement paste and the CNTs creates a very strong long range intermolecular force. Due to the increased entropy resulting from the exothermic hydration process, these forces augment the strength of the cement paste.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

www.cembureau.eu

CEMBUREAU, Activity Report 2017 of The European Cement Association, 2017. www.cembureau.eu

work page 2017
[2]

doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007

NRMCA, Concrete CO 2 Fact Sheet, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007 2008
[3]

Tamimi, N.M

A. Tamimi, N.M. Hassan, K. Fattah, A. Talachi, Performance of cementitious materials produced by incorporating surface treated multiwall carbon nanotubes and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 934–945. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.216

work page doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.216 2016
[4]

Hassan, K.P

N.M. Hassan, K.P. Fattah, A.K. Tamimi, Modelling mechanical behavior of cementitious material incorporating CNTs using design of experiments, Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 763–770. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.218

work page doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.218 2017
[5]

Y. Tao, W. Zhang, D. Shang, Z. Xia, N. Li, W.Y. Ching, F. Wang, S. Hu, Comprehending the occupying preference of manganese substitution in crystalline cement clinker phases: A theoretical study, Cem. Concr. Res. 109 (2018) 19–29. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.003 2018
[6]

W. Li, W.H. Duan, X. Li, S.J. Chen, G. Long, Y.M. Liu, Effects of Nanoalumina and Graphene Oxide on Early-Age Hydration and Mechanical Properties of Cement Paste, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017) 04017087. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001926

work page arXiv 2017
[7]

Lothenbach, G

B. Lothenbach, G. Le Saout, E. Gallucci, K. Scrivener, Influence of limestone on the hydration of Portland cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 848–860. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002 2008
[8]

W. Li, M. Asce, Z. Huang, T. Zu, C. Shi, W.H. Duan, S.P. Shah, M. Asce, Influence of Nanolimestone on the Hydration , Mechanical Strength , and Autogenous Shrinkage of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete, 28 (2016) 1–9. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943- 5533.0001327

arXiv 2016

Show all 19 references

[9]

Kutanaei, D

S.S. Kutanaei, D. Ph, A.J. Choobbasti, Effects of Nanosilica Particles and Randomly Distributed Fibers on the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity and Mechanical Properties of Cemented Sand, 29 (2017) 1–9. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001761. 33

2017
[10]

G.Y. Li, P.M. Wang, X. Zhao, Mechanical behavior and microstructure of cement composites incorporating surface-treated multi-walled carbon nanotubes, Carbon N. Y. 43 (2005) 1239–1245. doi:10.1016/J.CARBON.2004.12.017

2005 doi
[11]

Sedaghat, M.K

A. Sedaghat, M.K. Ram, A. Zayed, R. Kamal, N. Shanahan, Investigation of Physical Properties of Graphene-Cement Composite for Structural Applications, (2014). doi:10.4236/ojcm.2014.41002

2014
[12]

Gong, S.M

K. Gong, S.M. Asce, Z. Pan, A.H. Korayem, D. Ph, L. Qiu, D. Li, F. Collins, C.M. Wang, W.H. Duan, A.M. Asce, Reinforcing Effects of Graphene Oxide on Portland Cement Paste, 27 (2015) 1–6. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001125

2015
[13]

M.-F. Yu, O. Lourie, M.J. Dyer, K. Moloni, T.F. Kelly, R.S. Ruoff, Strength and Breaking Mechanism of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Under Tensile Load, Science (80-. ). 287 (2000) 637 LP – 640. doi:10.1126/science.287.5453.637

2000 doi
[14]

Szel, Mechano-Physical Properties and Microstructure of Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Cement Paste after Thermal Load, (2017) 1–22

M. Szel, Mechano-Physical Properties and Microstructure of Carbon Nanotube Reinforced Cement Paste after Thermal Load, (2017) 1–22. doi:10.3390/nano7090267

2017 doi
[15]

Taylor, Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford, London, 1997

H.F.W. Taylor, Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed., Thomas Telford, London, 1997. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/cc.25929

1997 doi
[16]

Dresselhaus, G

M.S. Dresselhaus, G. Dresselhaus, R. Saito, A. Jorio, Raman spectroscopy of carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rep. 409 (2005) 47–99. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.10.006

2005 doi
[17]

Grutzeck, F

M.W. Grutzeck, F. Puertas, M.T. Blanco-Varela, M.L. Granizo, T. Vazquez, A. Palomo, Chemical stability of cementitious materials based on metakaolin, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (2002) 997–1004. doi:10.1016/s0008-8846(99)00074-5

2002 doi
[18]

Omotoso, D

O.. Omotoso, D.. Ivey, R. Mikula, Containment mechanism of trivalent chromium in tricalcium silicate, J. Hazard. Mater. 60 (1998) 1–28. doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(97)00037- X

1998 doi
[19]

Yousuf, A

M. Yousuf, A. Mollah, T.R. Hess, Y.-N. Tsai, D.L. Cocke, An FTIR and XPS investigations of the effects of carbonation on the solidification/stabilization of cement based systems-Portland type V with zinc, Cem. Concr. Res. 23 (1993) 773–784. 34 doi:10.1016/0008-8846(93)90031-4

1993 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

www.cembureau.eu

CEMBUREAU, Activity Report 2017 of The European Cement Association, 2017. www.cembureau.eu

work page 2017

[2] [2]

doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007

NRMCA, Concrete CO 2 Fact Sheet, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2010.10.007 2008

[3] [3]

Tamimi, N.M

A. Tamimi, N.M. Hassan, K. Fattah, A. Talachi, Performance of cementitious materials produced by incorporating surface treated multiwall carbon nanotubes and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 934–945. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.216

work page doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.216 2016

[4] [4]

Hassan, K.P

N.M. Hassan, K.P. Fattah, A.K. Tamimi, Modelling mechanical behavior of cementitious material incorporating CNTs using design of experiments, Constr. Build. Mater. 154 (2017) 763–770. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.218

work page doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.218 2017

[5] [5]

Y. Tao, W. Zhang, D. Shang, Z. Xia, N. Li, W.Y. Ching, F. Wang, S. Hu, Comprehending the occupying preference of manganese substitution in crystalline cement clinker phases: A theoretical study, Cem. Concr. Res. 109 (2018) 19–29. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.003 2018

[6] [6]

W. Li, W.H. Duan, X. Li, S.J. Chen, G. Long, Y.M. Liu, Effects of Nanoalumina and Graphene Oxide on Early-Age Hydration and Mechanical Properties of Cement Paste, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2017) 04017087. doi:10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001926

work page arXiv 2017

[7] [7]

Lothenbach, G

B. Lothenbach, G. Le Saout, E. Gallucci, K. Scrivener, Influence of limestone on the hydration of Portland cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 848–860. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002 2008

[8] [8]

W. Li, M. Asce, Z. Huang, T. Zu, C. Shi, W.H. Duan, S.P. Shah, M. Asce, Influence of Nanolimestone on the Hydration , Mechanical Strength , and Autogenous Shrinkage of Ultrahigh-Performance Concrete, 28 (2016) 1–9. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943- 5533.0001327

arXiv 2016