Budget
£25–45k
Duration
12 weeks
Closes
30 Sept 2026
Background
A supplier has provided a graphene-based additive and a set of claims about compressive strength and durability. The claims may well be true. They were obtained on small specimens, in a laboratory, by people with an interest in the outcome, and they are not in a form that any asset owner would accept as a basis for varying a sleeper specification.
What is needed is an independent characterisation against a named rail specification, with the control mix given exactly as much care as the enhanced one. That last point is where a surprising number of additive studies quietly fail: the control is mixed carelessly and the comparison flatters the product.
This is deliberately scoped as characterisation rather than development. The question is whether a field trial is justified, and the honest answer may be no. We would rather pay to learn that now than commission a ten-year trial on optimistic coupon data.
Scope
- Agree a small matrix of mixes with and without the supplied additive.
- Mechanical and durability testing against a named rail specification.
- Say, in writing, whether a field trial is justified.
- Assess dispersion consistency across batches, since this is the usual failure mode.
- Report the control mix results with the same rigour as the enhanced mix.
Constraints
The awkward facts, stated now rather than in week six.
- The additive is supplied in limited quantity; the test matrix must fit within it
- Twelve weeks does not permit long-duration durability testing, only accelerated regimes
- The named specification is fixed and not open to negotiation
- The supplier will not disclose the full additive composition
Deliverables
- Test matrix and raw data
- Comparison against the named specification
- Go / no-go note for a field trial
- Batch-to-batch dispersion assessment with photographic evidence
- A statement of what the twelve-week programme cannot establish
Milestones
- Week 1Test matrix agreed and additive quantities allocated
- Week 4Specimens cast and curing; dispersion assessment reported
- Week 9Mechanical and durability testing complete, raw data delivered
- Week 12Final report and go / no-go recommendation
Who should apply
- Accredited or university materials laboratory
- Experience with cementitious systems
- Capability for freeze–thaw and fatigue testing in-house or through a named subcontractor
- Willingness to publish a negative result
How applications will be judged
In roughly this order.
- Accreditation and demonstrable experience with cementitious testing
- Proposed test matrix — we will read it closely, and the control matters
- Explicit treatment of dispersion and batch variability
- Clarity about the limits of an accelerated durability regime
Terms
- Raw data is delivered to us in full and may be shared with the supplier and an asset owner
- The laboratory may publish the results after six months, including a negative finding
- The additive is supplied under confidentiality; composition inferences may not be published
- Payment on delivery of raw data and again on acceptance of the final report
Apply
Tell the publisher who you are and what you would do. We pass it on. The rest is between grown-ups.
The named specification is available on request before you price the work. Please ask for it.