Characterise the actual batch
Carbon purity alone does not identify graphene class. Raman, XRD, particle morphology, oxygen content and batch provenance form the minimum identity package.
Technology / evidence boundary
From material class to an engineering decision.
This page distinguishes graphene oxide, graphene nanoplatelets and turbostratic graphene; identifies how dosage and dispersion change performance; and separates external literature from INFORM-specific validation.
“Graphene” is not a sufficient specification
Different oxygen content, lateral size, thickness, defect density and surface chemistry create different dispersion, hydration and electrical behaviour. Cross-class comparison is directional only.
| Class | Defining feature | Indicative literature dosage | Electrical / sensing evidence | INFORM relevance | Claim state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GO · graphene oxide | Oxygenated, hydrophilic sheets; chemically distinct from low-oxygen graphene. | Common experimental range: approximately 0.03–0.08% by cement mass. | GF 35 reported at 0.05% GO and w/c 0.35 under the cited study conditions. | Mechanistic and test-design comparator; not a substitute for TG evidence. | Literature-supported |
| GNP · graphene nanoplatelets | Multi-layer platelet material; properties vary strongly with thickness and lateral size. | Studies span approximately 0.05–0.5%, with wider experimental ranges. | Conductivity and piezoresistivity depend strongly on dispersion and percolation. | Closest broad comparator for low-oxygen platelet behaviour. | Literature-supported |
| TG · turbostratic graphene | Rotationally disordered stacked layers; may be produced through flash Joule heating. | INFORM target: 0.03–0.06% by cement mass; not an established optimum. | TG-specific cement piezoresistive performance is not yet established by INFORM. | Current target material; requires batch identity, dispersion and percolation validation. | Validation target |
| rGO · reduced graphene oxide | Partially deoxygenated GO; residual defects and chemistry differ from TG and GNP. | Study-specific; cannot be transferred without full material definition. | Some high-sensitivity reports exist, but comparability and replication vary. | Reference class only unless explicitly introduced into a test arm. | External / variable |
| MWCNT · benchmark | One-dimensional conductive nanotube network. | Often around 0.1–1.0% by cement mass in published studies. | Mature research benchmark for self-sensing cementitious composites. | Comparator technology, not a graphene class. | Benchmark |
Percentages are mass fraction of cement unless a cited study states otherwise. They are not interchangeable with percentage of total binder, dispersion solids or concrete mass.
Material → mechanism → engineering outcome → adoption
Each arrow is conditional. A material cannot reach the next step merely because an adjacent graphene class did so in another mix design.
IDENTITYMorphologyRaman, XRD, chemistry, size and defect state.
PROCESSDispersionPCE, energy, temperature, time and stability.
MICROSTRUCTURENetworkContact and tunnelling paths through the matrix.
RESPONSEΔR/R₀Load-linked change separated from moisture and drift.
VALUEDecisionInformation that changes inspection or maintenance.
The variables that decide whether the mechanism survives
Record energy, not just time
Device frequency, net energy, amplitude, duty cycle, volume and temperature are required. “Sonicated for 30 minutes” is not reproducible process information.
Control PCE and water
PCE type, PCE-to-carbon ratio, solids contribution and effective water-to-cement ratio can alter both rheology and apparent electrical behaviour.
Map the percolation region
A useful dosage must balance connectivity against agglomeration, workability, mechanical integrity and cost. One nominal dosage cannot establish an optimum.
Separate bulk response from contact effects
Four-electrode geometry, consistent embedment, conductor isolation and polarity control reduce—but do not eliminate—contact and polarisation artefacts.
Measure the confounders
Moisture, temperature, age, curing, loading rate and rest period must be recorded because they can dominate resistance and gauge-factor estimates.
Selected sources supporting the public technical boundary
These sources establish external evidence only. Detailed literature assessment, compatibility scoring and claim audit remain in the controlled dossier.
| Source | Direct relevance | Boundary | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luong et al., Nature 577 (2020) | Gram-scale flash Joule heating; turbostratic product; reported 7.2 kJ/g electrical energy and high-carbon-source yields. | Source includes inventor commercial interests; it does not validate INFORM scale-up economics or TG sensing performance. | DOI → |
| Guo et al., Nanomaterials 11 (2021) | GO-cement piezoresistivity; reported GF 35 at 0.05% GO under specified conditions. | GO is chemically and structurally different from INFORM’s target TG. | DOI → |
| Krystek et al., Advanced Functional Materials (2019) | Electrochemically exfoliated graphene in cementitious composite; material and microstructure evidence. | Material route and batch characteristics are not equivalent to tyre-derived TG. | Open article → |
| ISO 23247 series | Digital-twin framework for manufacturing; useful architectural reference for data and interoperability. | Not a civil-infrastructure compliance standard and does not validate PULSE. | ISO 23247-5:2026 → |
Citation discipline
A web link is not evidence of applicability. Before a value enters an INFORM decision model it must be mapped to material class, dosage basis, mix design, dispersion process, specimen, measurement method, controls and uncertainty.
Inspect the test pathway behind the science
The validation roadmap shows how material identity, dispersion, specimen controls, DAQ readiness and signal validation are converted into gate decisions.