Sustainability 11 05145 v2
Sustainability 11 05145 v2
Sustainability 11 05145 v2
Review
Green Concrete: By-Products Utilization and
Advanced Approaches
Ahmed Al-Mansour 1 , Cheuk Lun Chow 1 , Luciano Feo 2 , Rosa Penna 2 and Denvid Lau 1,3, *
1 Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077,
China; [email protected] (A.A.-M.); [email protected] (C.L.C.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano SA, Italy; [email protected] (L.F.);
[email protected] (R.P.)
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA 02139, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +852-34426829
Received: 8 July 2019; Accepted: 16 September 2019; Published: 20 September 2019
Abstract: The popularity of concrete has been accompanied with dreadful consumptions that have
led to huge carbon footprint in our environment. The exhaustion of natural resources is not yet the
problem, but also the energy that is needed for the fabrication of the natural materials, in which this
process releases significant amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions into the air. Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) and natural aggregates, which are the key constituents of concrete, are suggested to
be recycled or substituted in order to address the sustainability concern. Here, by-products have
been targeted to reduce the carbon footprint, including, but not limited to, fly ash, rice husk ash,
silica fume, recycled coarse aggregates, ground granular blast-furnace slag, waste glass, and plastic.
Moreover, advanced approaches with an emphasis on sustainability are highlighted, which include
the enhancement of the hydration process in cement (calcium-silicate hydrate) and the development
of new materials that can be used in concrete (e.g., carbon nanotube). This review paper provides a
comprehensive discussion upon the utilization of the reviewed materials, as well as the challenges
and the knowledge gaps in producing green and sustainable concrete.
1. Introduction
For several decades, the demand of construction materials has been increasing, particularly, for
concrete. Concrete, as a composite material, gained its status of applicability through its mechanical
properties and economical price, especially when compared with other available materials. However,
there is no ideal material, and concrete is not an exception. Concrete is responsible for a great
impact on the environment by consuming large amount of natural resources and continually releasing
approximately one ton of CO2 for each ton of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) produced [1]. It has been
estimated that cement production will reach up to four billion tonnes each year by 2030 [2]. Additionally,
more than 5% of the manmade greenhouse gas emissions originate from cement production [3]. Such
harmful contribution on the environment paves the way for alternative materials that can either reduce
the uncontrolled consumption of natural resources or recycle industrial and agricultural by-products.
Accordingly, green concrete concept that came out at the end of the last century aims to fully or partially
replace the components of the ordinary concrete for waste or recycled materials. In fact, the idea of
green concrete has been extended to not only waste materials, but also to nano-engineered materials
that can enhance concrete’s mechanical properties, and, as a result, its life-cycle sustainability.
Figure 1. Main processes for manufacturing and using OPC. From excavation works at quarries, to
cement production in industries, which include burning fuels to heat kilns and calcination process in
which limestone is broken down into calcium oxide and CO2 . Each step is accompanied by mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions into the environment.
the bottom-up approach of nano-engineering, the chemical and physical properties of a material can
be studied, understood, and enhanced [32]. New developments can also be seen in the near future,
including smart concrete in sever conditions, eco-binders that aim to reduce the amount of OPC,
therefore, CO2 emissions, and self-healing concrete [33], to mention a few. The molecular dynamics
(MD) atomistic simulation is a tool for studying the nanostructures and understanding the atomic
behavior of materials. This method started long time ago to study the physical and chemical systems
in order to solve problems in chemistry [34], but it was limited to a small number of particles due to
memory capacity and processing speed. MD simulation is now being used for engineering applications
to study the elastic properties of OPC [35], where the physical and chemical properties are the dominant
concerns, and to study and develop new materials, such as carbon nanotube (CNT) [36,37], which is
being effectively used in concrete nowadays.
This paper encapsulates the most common by-products that are used as substitutes for the major
components of concrete. A review on the recyclable industrial and agricultural waste materials that
are usable in concrete is provided, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each candidate.
Among the reviewed by-products, this paper clearly shows which substitute is appropriate for the
three main ingredients of the ordinary concrete, alongside the optimum substitution ratio of each.
Fly ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA), silica fume (SF), and other pozzolanic ashes are introduced as
cement replacements, while recycled coarse aggregates is an alternate of the virgin coarse aggregates.
Ground granular blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), waste glass (WG), plastic (P), and several agricultural
and aquacultural by-products are represented as both cement and/or aggregate substitutes afterwards.
Figure 2 clarifies the concept of the classification that is used in this review by showing which
by-product is substituted for. The materials listed above might form ternary systems, in which two
by-products can work as a substitute in the same mixture. Thus, the most common ternary systems are
also mentioned with their benefits. Furthermore, nano-engineered materials also carry out the aim
of utilizing different by-products in concrete; in other words, sustainability in concrete industry in
terms of nano-engineering is addressed. Finally, the difficulties that are faced for accepting either the
reviewed by-products or the nano-engineered materials in concrete are stated with suggestions for
surmounting their limitations. Each limitation of the abovementioned substitutes is a research area by
itself, and a clear interpretation of such by-products is the first step towards the incorporation of these
materials into the concrete industry and consummation a footstep for sustainability.
Figure 2. The most common by-products that are used as substitutes. This diagram clarifies the
methodology of this review for the categorization system of the reviewed by-products used as
concrete ingredients.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 4 of 30
Table 1. Chemical composition and particle size of cement and its substitutes (%). The cement
mentioned in this review is the OPC type-1.
Size and
Cement FA Class F FA Class C RHA SF WG GGBFS
Compounds
2–20 [40]
5–60 [40] av. 3.8 [45] 0.3–2 [40] ≤70 [22,50]
≤75 [10]
Particle size (µm) 0.1–110 [41] av. 11.5 [46] av. 0.1 [48] ≤90 [24] 0.1–200 [41,53]
0.05–100 [43]
2–160 [42] ≤45 [16,47] <1 [49] av. 45 [51,52]
1–200 [44]
SiO2 20–22 50–68 38–46 75–91 85–97 64–72 34–42
Al2 O3 4.0–6.0 17–28 16–22 0–3.9 0.2–1.1 1.0–10 7–16
Fe2 O3 2.4–3.5 4–14 6–14 0.1–1.1 0.4–2.0 0.1–1.6 0.3–1.5
CaO 61–65 1.6–9.3 19–25 0.5–3.8 0.3–0.7 8.5–15 32–45
Na2 O 0.1–0.4 0.1–1.6 0.03–1.6 0.1–1.1 0.1–0.7 12–18 0.2–0.4
K2 O 0–0.9 0.4–2.6 0.2–1.4 1.0–3.8 0.3–1.3 0.4–1.6 0–0.8
TiO2 0–0.24 1.4–1.6 0–0.1 0–0.1 0–1.0
MgO 1.0–2.6 1–5.2 3–7.8 0.2–0.8 0.0–1.6 0.9–3.9 3.2–15
P2 O5 0–0.9 0.4–1.5 0.5–2.1 0–0.1 0–0.7
SO3 2.0–4.7 0.2–2.0 1.6–3.3 0–1.2 0.0–1.3 0.1–0.4 0.01–1.0
MnO 0.1 0-0.7 0–1.0
Loss of ignition
0.1–2.4 0.3–3.9 0.2–1.3 1.8–8.6 0.0–2.8 0.8 0.04–0.3
(LOI)
References for
[8,9,23,41,45, [8,9,11,40, [12,16,17,45, [17,49,71– [39,41,53,58,
chemical [9,11,40,63] [22–24,50–52]
51,54–59] 55,60–63] 56,57,64–70] 73] 59,74–76]
compounds
µm: micrometer, FA: fly ash, RHA: rice husk ash, SF: silica fume, WG: waste glass, and GGBFS: ground granular
blast-furnace slag.
Table 2. Main microscopic features of different candidates replacing cement, in addition to the relevant
references for the SEM images.
OPC
+ f ree lime
FA → +
→ (C − S − H )
+ FA
water
There is almost no research related to concrete that does not mention the resistance of concrete
for compression. Concrete is a mixture of aggregates and cementing materials that hydrate with the
existence of water. Compressive strength of concrete is mainly controlled by the weaker component,
which is the adhesion medium, cement. Accordingly, the substitution of cement for fly ash is
controlled by the compressive strength that fly ash can produce. The compressive strength of
concrete incorporating fly ash as a cement substitute has been thoroughly studied [8,40,43,55,60,62,84].
The substitution ratio has always been the key factor that researchers investigate in their studies. It was
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 6 of 30
found that the optimum ratio of substitution for the standard concrete was 8% to 20%. Table 3 shows
how the substitution of cement for fly ash Class F at different substitution ratios affects the overall
compressive strength of concrete. The ratio w/b herein identifies the water to binder ratio that is used
in the mixtures. The binder is the cement matrix plus any other material used for substituting cement.
While the ratio w/c used in later tables identifies water to only-cement ratios for different mixtures.
The table clarifies that the substitution of cement should be limited to 15% by the weight of cement to
obtain an increase of 20% of the compressive strength. Substitution ratios of 20% to 25% were also
suggested for the common use of concrete [7]. Moreover, the early-age strength development is a
drawback for fly ash, where the seven-day strength ratios are, most of the times, less than 1.0, which
indicates a slower compressive strength as compared to the controlled samples (reference compressive
strength), even at the recommended substitution ratios. In fact, this delay is not a problem for mass
concrete structures that are not loaded until a while after casting [1], e.g., dams, especially since heat
of hydration for fly ash is lower than that of the regular portland cement. Compressive strength of
concrete incorporating fly ash Class C was also studied, and the trend was fairly the same, however
the early-age strength was always higher compared to Class F. Even more, at 60% of substitution ratio
for Class C, the early-age strength is considerably remarkable [62], but it gets weaker at 28 days as
compared to the OPC concrete.
Table 3. The effects of different substitution ratios of cement for fly ash Class F at different ages.
Reference Compressive
Cement Strength at Different Ages Substitution Substitution f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
w/b Content (f c ’ reference ) (MPa) Ratio of Content
(kg/m3 ) Cement (%) (kg/m3 )
7 28 90 7 28 90
8 32 1.02 1.05 1.08
0.25 86.0 92.0 91.5
15 60 0.97 1.10 1.13
400
8 32 0.97 1.14 1.14
0.35 64.0 66.0 79.0
15 60 0.94 1.19 1.18
20 70 0.91 1.03 1.08
0.40 352 33.2 47.5 55.1
30 106 0.91 0.95 1.00
0.28 500 66.8 81.1 50 250 0.52 0.67
Notes: The data in the first and second rows, third row, and the last row are taken from the references [8,43,60]
respectively.
could be achieved with no effects on compressive strength [65]. Importantly, concrete incorporating
RHA was found to reduce magnesium sulphate attacks [12] and chloride penetrability according to
ASTM C1202 [16,17]. However, different researchers have produced conflicting mechanical results,
such as compressive strength [56,69,90]. This can be referred to the degree of fineness, which RHA is
very sensitive to, and the source and properties of rice husks than can vary from a place to another.
A more serious drawback of RHA is noticed in Table 1, where the loss of ignition is as high as 8%,
while it is limited to 3% in OPC. The high ratio of LOI indicates that there are enough components that
might evaporate at elevated temperatures, which makes it uncertain to be a competitive for cement
substitutes, especially when concrete is exposed to high temperature.
Table 4. The effects of different substitution ratios of cement for rice husk ash (RHA).
Reference
Cement Substitution Substitution
Compressive
w/b Content Ratio of Content f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
Strength
(kg/m3 ) Cement (%) (kg/m3 )
(f c ’ reference ) (MPa)
5 19 1.05
10 38 1.16
15 57 1.26
0.53 383 37.0 20 77 1.08
25 96 1.04
30 115 1.00
35 134 0.97
10 57 1.09
0.35 571 56.0 20 114 1.07
30 171 0.96
10 55 1.15
0.30 550 63.5 15 82 1.18
20 110 1.23
Notes: The data in the first, second and third rows are taken from the references [45,64,65] respectively.
bleeding [49]. Other researchers [97,98] suggest a SF content of 5–10% to prevent the bleeding of
concrete and increased protection against sulphate attacks and chloride ions. The bleeding of concrete
normally happens when the concrete components settle under their own weight just after casting.
Water, as a light material as compared to others in concrete, is forced upward or moves up to the
surface through capillary channels, and then it evaporates [49]. These channels become exposed
ways for aggressive chemicals to attack concrete and its reinforcement. Therefore, the existing of SF
in concrete develops better resistance against aggressive chemical agents. The incorporation of SF
into concrete increases the overall compressive strength [96,98–102], tensile strength, and modulus of
elasticity [98,100,102]. The increase in these strengths varies depending on SF particle size, dimensions
of specimens used in the tests, and testing procedures. Table 5 shows an example of the enhancement of
compressive strength of concrete containing different portions of SF. Compressive strength is enhanced
10–45% as compared to the controlled samples at substitution ratios of 5–20% of cement by weight.
Another key advantage of using SF in concrete is its ability to reduce permeability of concrete, this has
been thoroughly investigated [49,103–105]. It was reported that the permeability of concrete reduces
drastically as long as the SF content is beyond 8% [103]. The reduction of permeability of concrete
diminishes gradually as SF content increases within the range 8–12%. Alklai-silica-reaction (ASR)
reduces in the presence of SF as long as the silica content is within the specified standards [106].
Table 5. The effects of different substitution ratios of cement for silica fume at different ages.
Reference Compressive
Cement Strength at Different Ages Substitution Substitution f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
w/b Content (f c ’ reference ) (MPa) Ratio of Content
(kg/m3 ) Cement (%) (kg/m3 )
7 28 90 7 28 90
4.5 20 1.13
0.43 440 45
9 40 1.09
10 88 1.21
0.23 980 82 20 160 1.23
30 219 1.15
0.35 425 57 65 74 10 45 1.23 1.48 1.27
Notes: The data in the first, second and third rows are taken from the references [94,104,107] respectively.
Like other substitutes, SF requires more experienced labors to avoid its drawbacks. The workability
of concrete reduces because of the high surface area of SF particles. Therefore, an increase in water
demand has been observed [94,97,101]. Moreover, it has been reported that very high SF content
reduces the long-term compressive strength due to the inhibition of hydration of cementitious materials
in concrete [107]. In addition, a high content of SF increases the dry shrinkage of high-performance
cementitious mixtures accordingly [94,107].
processes. However, the suggested substitution ratios varies from 5% [116], 10% [117], and 20% [115].
Water demand of concrete mixtures increases as the portion of SDA increases in concrete [115–117],
and the mechanical properties are generally reduced accordingly [117].
Furthermore, sugarcane bagasse ash (SBA) is a by-product that results from producing can sugar
juice from sugar cane, where this requires crushing the stalks of the plants [91]. The incorporation of
SBA into concrete reduces the temperature of hydration up to 33% when 30% of OPC was replaced
by SBA [118]. In addition, water permeability significantly reduces when compared to controlled
concrete samples [118,119]. In order to get higher compressive strengths, the suggested cement
replacement varies from 15% [120], 20% [118], and 30% [119]. It was reported that SBA helps control
ASR expansion in concrete by binding alkalies [121]. There are various agricultural by-products that
can be used to replace cement. Bamboo fiber and leaf ash (BA) is also used to replace OPC. Bamboo
is well-known for its high yielding strength, and it is widely used in some regions for construction
purposes, mostly scaffoldings. Burning the bamboo fibers and leaves results in a grey ash with high
content of silica [122–124]. The development of compressive strength of concrete containing BA
witnessed different trends. While slight decrease was noticed when 10–20% of OPC was replaced [125],
an increase was recorded when 5–10% of OPC was replaced [126]. On the other hand, it was found
that water demand of concrete mixtures increases as BA increases in the concrete [125–128]. Moreover,
a delay in the setting time was noticed during the hydration process, when 20% of BA was used [125].
Palm oil fuel ash (POFA) is another by-product that can be used to replace cement in concrete. It is a
waste product of bio-diesel industry [91]. POFA has enough silica content that can react with calcium
hydroxide [129]. Nevertheless, the optimum substitution ratio of cement for POFA is limited to 20%
by some researchers [129–131] and 10% by others [132]. It was also noticed that 20% of POFA in
concrete results in high strength with lower drying shrinkage concrete [131]. One drawback that can
be found with POFA is the reduction of workability in fresh concrete mixtures [133,134]. Therefore,
superplasticizers are needed with the addition of POFA [131,135,136].
while the reduction could reach as high as 25% when 100% of natural coarse aggregates were replaced
by RCA. The usage of RCA might be judged by an engineer for a project based on the aggregates’
availability and feasibility. For general practices, it was found that RCA did not have a significant
effect when it replaced 25% of natural aggregates [148], and it was recommended for the “Moderate”
exposure conditions defined in ASTM C1202 [150].
As a recycled material, RCA has some drawbacks because of the preceding use in concrete. Firstly,
the old paste can still be found at the surface of the RCA, as a result, the specific gravity of the aggregate
is reduced, and the porosity is increased [142]. In fact, not only does the existence of the paste affect the
specific gravity, but it also becomes a foothold for water particles at the surface in addition to the water
particles inside the aggregate. This is also the main reason for the reduction of workability in concrete
that involves RCA [145,151]. It was concluded that, as the amount of RCA increases in concrete, the
workability and mechanical performance of the concrete decreases. This is referred to the residual
adhered mortar at the surface of the RCA that has high absorption capacity that is caused by its high
porosity. The adhered mortar absorbs the designed amount of water added for new mixtures due to its
lightweight and high porosity, as mentioned earlier, as compared to natural aggregates [152]. Using
RCA requires more experience with water content because the dry condition is away different from
saturated condition of RCA due to its high absorption [146,147]. Multi-recycled aggregate was also
experimentally studied [151], and it was concluded that the mechanical properties of RCA continued
to decrease as the number of recycling increased.
Table 6. The effects of different substitution ratios of coarse aggregates for recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA).
Coarse Reference
Cement Substitution Substitution
Aggregates Compressive
w/c Content Ratio of Coarse Content f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
Content Strength
(kg/m3 ) Aggregates (%) (kg/m3 )
(kg/m3 ) (f c ’ reference ) (MPa)
30 374 0.95
50 609 0.82
0.43 430 1295 35.9
70 832 0.84
100 1149 0.74
25 290 0.95
0.4 300 1366 34.8 50 570 0.92
100 1150 0.84
25 280 0.97
0.5 300 1314 35.8 50 550 0.92
100 1100 0.84
25 250 0.95
0.4 450 1179 52.8 50 500 0.89
100 990 0.81
25 230 0.97
0.5 450 1100 41.5 50 460 0.92
100 920 0.83
0.55 298 1361 34.6 100 1361 0.76
Notes: The data in the first row, second to fifth rows, and the last row are taken from the references [142,148,149]
respectively.
replacement by mass for GGBFS to the tune of 60% to 70%, which is high when compared with other
substitutes. GGBFS generates less heat during the hydration process [21]; therefore, no wonder that
different mixtures with OPC and GGBFS are commonly used when it is required to minimize the
temperature differentials during heat of hydration without installing cooling systems [18]. GGBFS
can be used as a cement substitute and as an aggregates substitute. The particle size of the GGBFS
that was used to replace fine aggregates is generally less than 5 mm [75]. While the size of GGBFS
used as cement substitute can vary from 0.1 to 250 µm, which is the size distribution of typical cement
particles. The size of GGBFS as a cement substitute depends on the milling time [41]. Therefore, it can
be tailored to match the size distribution of cement. The chemical composition of GGBFS that is used
to replace cement and aggregates is the same according to the reviewed articles.
The utilization of GGBFS as a cement substitute has advantages and disadvantages. It has been
proven that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced when using GGBFS as a cement replacement [18,19].
On the other hand, the mechanical properties were also investigated regarding compressive strength
and ductility [21,41,58,59,75,153–155]. Although GGBFS might develop lower early-age strength of
concrete, an equivalent or even greater 28-day strength can be gained. Table 7 represents the trend of
substituting cement for GGBFS. Fairly said, early-age strength was always lower when compared to the
controlled samples, whilst the 28-day strength was equivalent or slightly better with substitution ratios
of up to 50% and sometimes 70%. Importantly, concrete incorporating GGBFS continued developing
strength in the long-term (90-day compressive strength) as high as 15% as compared to the controlled
concrete. In fact, this was also valid for the flexure and modulus of elasticity [18]. Some drawbacks
were spotted regarding the cohesive substance (C-S-H) production of concrete in the presence of
GGBFS. Normally, OPC produces C-S-H in an alkaline medium (PH ≥ 9.5), while the GGBFS mixture
requires higher values (PH ≥ 11.5) [39]. Moreover, the carbonation rate raises when GGBFS increases,
but it can be reduced by controlling the wet curing time that is based on GGBFS content [156].
Table 7. The effects of different substitution ratios of cement for Ground Granular Blast-Furnace Slag
(GGBFS) at different ages.
Reference Compressive
Cement Strength at Different Ages Substitution Substitution f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
w/b Content (f c ’ reference ) (MPa) Ratio of Content
(kg/m3 ) Cement (%) (kg/m3 )
7 28 90 7 28 90
20 80 0.93 1.01 1.06
40 160 0.87 1.02 1.04
0.3 400 73.8 80.7 85.2
60 240 0.79 0.96 0.93
80 320 0.66 0.84 0.89
20 80 0.96 1.03 1.07
40 160 0.94 1.05 1.15
0.4 400 53.7 63.9 67.9
60 240 0.85 0.96 1.11
80 320 0.72 0.83 0.84
20 80 0.98 1.02 1.08
40 160 0.82 1.00 1.02
0.5 400 34.9 51.4 56.8
60 240 0.68 0.78 0.87
80 320 0.54 0.49 0.56
30 146 0.89 1.05
0.56 415 27.0 37.0
70 319 0.81 1.01
Notes: The data in the first three rows and the last row are taken from the references [58,59] respectively.
It is worth mentioning that GGBFS is also used as fine aggregates replacement, though not as
much as cement replacement due to the chemical components mismatch. Compressive and tensile
strengths were seen to be improved when the replacement level of fine aggregates for GGBFS did
not exceed 60% [75]. However, using GGBFS with RCA in one mixture decreased the mechanical
properties of concrete compared to a controlled sample, while the optimum substitution content was
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 12 of 30
recommended around 40% of GGBFS and 50% of RCA to guarantee less than 5% reduction in the
mechanical properties [157]. The concept of mixing two materials, i.e., ternary systems, is explicitly
addressed in the following section. Overcoming the limitation of one substitute being possible, and
GGBFS is a common by-product for the ternary systems.
Table 8. The effects of different substitution ratios of cement for waste glass (WG).
Reference
Cement Substitution Substitution
Compressive
w/b Content Ratio of Content f c ’ with substitutes /f c ’ reference
Strength
(kg/m3 ) Cement (%) (kg/m3 )
(f c ’ reference ) (MPa)
5 17.5 1.05
10 35.0 1.00
0.500 350 32.20 15 52.0 0.91
20 70.0 0.87
25 87.5 0.85
5 22.5 1.02
10 45.0 1.05
0.350 450 44.32 15 67.5 0.91
20 90.0 0.89
25 112.5 0.86
10 30.0 0.93
15 45.0 0.88
0.485 300 43.00
20 60.0 0.85
25 75.0 0.80
Notes: The data in the first and second rows, and the last row are taken from the references [22,23] respectively.
1.25% replacement by volume led to around 30% reduction in compressive strength. While the use of
shredded plastic as aggregate replacement by 5% and 15% led to a reduction in compressive strength
of about 15% and 65%, respectively. Moreover, plastic reduces the abrasion resistance of concrete due
to its plasticity nature [27]. Additionally, when applied to thermal cycles, concrete samples with plastic
are inferior to that of controlling concrete samples [170,172]. Nonetheless, special treatments for waste
plastic have been implemented in order to decrease the impact of the abovementioned drawbacks
in concrete.
Plastic has been used in concrete for the aim of producing green concrete. Like any composite
material, the interfacial transition zone between different materials is the controlling factor [179,180].
In the literature, there are different physical and chemical approaches to enhance interfacial bond
between concrete and plastic. An improvement of the bond strength between plastics, as a replacement
of aggregates, and concrete mixture prior to mixing was conducted successfully [181]. Two chemical
compounds were used: (1) sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite, (2) sodium hydroxide and
sodium hypochlorite and water. The overall results, including compressive and tensile strengths,
were not promising, especially when the plastic samples were not washed by water after the chemical
treatment. Another approach was used through cutting the waste PET bottles to the size of 5–15 mm
and then intruding them in a high temperature mixer with GGBFS to solidify the surface of the plastic
samples [178]. The reactive GGBFS, which was used to solidify the plastic surface, was able to densely
cover the plastic aggregates by C-S-H. The resultant pellets were then used in concrete mixtures and
provided little drops in strengths, even when the new pellets replaced 50% of natural aggregates.
Moreover, a long treatment process was suggested for the waste PET bottles in order to solidify
the surface of the plastic samples [182]. Plastics were crushed and washed first, and then dumped
into a reactor power vacuum to be heated to the drying temperature. After that, the samples were
extruded through several holes and then collected in a cooling bath. Finally, they were centrifuged to
remove the excess water and then crystallized. When compared to the controlled concrete samples,
and to the treatment procedure, the durability criteria of the final concrete with the treated plastic
were moderate. Similarly, the same treatment method was proposed for plastics before using them
as aggregates in concrete [183]. Their results verified the work that was done earlier [182], and the
suggested replacement percentages are 5–10% of the fine aggregates in concrete mixtures. A simpler
treatment method of plastics was suggested for the expanded polystyrene (EPS) foams [184], where
different temperatures (100–150 ◦ C) were applied to get plastic pellets. A relatively large decrease in
compressive strengths of mixtures containing the treated EPS pellets was observed as compared to
the controlled samples. Nonetheless, several types of EPS foams are highly toxic when exposed to
elevated temperatures [185].
was also noted as a result of filling the voids by WSA that was caused by its fineness [196]. Therefore,
better resistance against aggressive chemical agents (i.e., sodium and magnesium sulphates) was found
even at low substitution ratio of cement [197]. Nonetheless, a decrease of workability and increase of
setting times were noticed by the addition of WSA in concrete [198]. Other researchers [192,199] have
used wheat straw waste as a replacement of fine aggregates. It was concluded that better durability
and compressive strength of concrete can be gained at a 6% substitution ratio of fine aggregates for
wheat straw waste [192]. A 15% replacement, thermal cycling resistance improvement of concrete was
indicated [199].
Besides, oyster waste exists in large quantities. In China alone, around 10 million tonnes of
waste seashells, including oyster shells, end up in landfills each year [200]. At a replacement ratio of
20% for oyster shells, a better strength development was noted for cement mortars for masonry and
plastering [201]. Another study concluded that a few portions of oyster ash as a substitute for cement
had no effects on the overall durability of the concrete [202]. However, in general, as the portion of
oyster shells increases in the concrete mixtures, the compressive strength reduces accordingly [203–205].
One major harmful effect of oyster shells when used as a partial replacement of fine aggregates in
concrete is that workability significantly decreases [202,203]. This is referred to two reasons: (a) water
absorption of fine particles of oyster increases [203] and (b) irregular flat particles increases the friction
in concrete mixtures [202]. Mussel is another aquacultural product that is known for its existence in
salt and fresh water. Like oyster, mussel can provide better compressive strength when used to prepare
cement mortars [201]. Moreover, the addition of mussel in concrete decreases thermal conductivity of
cement mortars and plastering [201]. The substitution of fine or coarse aggregates for mussel should
not exceed 25% [206], otherwise the mechanical strengths of concrete expressively reduces due to poor
bonding caused by flat and flaky shapes of the particles of mussels [206,207], and the presence of
organic polymers [206].
(SF) [72], GGBFS along with SF extended the curing time of concrete, but the early-age and long-term
strengths increased and the shrinkage of concrete reduced at later ages.
FA was also studied in ternary mixtures with RCA, RHA, WG, and plastic. Regardless of
the reduction in CO2 emissions [215], RCA with FA results in great reduction of heat of hydration
and early-age strength. It was observed that, at lower concrete grades, the mechanical properties
were not tangibly affected [216]. Generally speaking, as the contents of FA and RCA increase,
the mechanical properties generally decrease [217]. RHA has more pozzolanic activities than FA.
Therefore, the implementation of both in one mixture (ternary system) results in overall better
mechanical properties than using each one of them alone [218]. The benefits of this ternary system are
limited to a substitution ratio of 50% or less for OPC by RHA and FA [219]. As high as 30% of FA and
15% of WG were found to be superior to the controlled samples in terms of compressive strength and
freeze-thaw resistance [220]. The combination of 100% FA and different portions of WG was found to
be promising with suitable durability and structural performance [221]. As for plastic, regular and
irradiated plastic were used as cement and aggregates substitutes. The effect of irradiation process
on the plastic was determined by calculating the amorphous and crystalline contribution of different
dosages of irradiation of plastic. Additional C-S-H in different forms were observed with the addition
of irradiated plastic, which indicates that a strength increase was gained by the irradiated plastic [167].
Furthermore, FA was also added with other materials, such as silica fume (SF) [71], and the resultant
concrete samples perform better than the controlled samples, on the whole.
WG has also been investigated in ternary systems with RCA and RHA. The use of WG with
RCA was a perfect way to overcome the high water-absorption of RCA, because the microstructure
of the mortar got improved [222], and so did the bond between the binder and the surface of the
aggregates. In other words, WG helped to form C-S-H gel better, which in turn contributed in warding
off ASR reactions [25,222]. As for RHA, WG and RHA are both high pozzolanic materials, and they
are recommended as cement substitutes at 15% and 5% [223], respectively. An improvement of
compressive strength and tensile strength were noted. However, the early-age strength decreased as
compared to the controlled concrete [224]. In addition, an enhancement of workability was observed
due to the reduction of water absorption of concrete [224].
needs of future generations [228]. This cannot be achieved without the up-to-date techniques and tools
from different scientific fields, because sustainability is not limited to one single aspect. All related
scientific aspects deal with sustainability of materials, including concrete as the second most consumed
material in earth, with the aim of reduction, reusing, and recycling [229]. Advanced approaches for
improving concrete properties can either be like a sophisticated accurate way of modeling concrete
components or a micro- and nano-scale study of atoms forming these components, where the latter is
the most successful in terms of describing how properties originate.
cement matrix was found to be 0.065% to 0.1% by the weight of cement [243], and sometimes up to 0.2%
by weight [244]. Within these ratios, the maximum increase in compressive strength ranges from 10%
to 25%, however it may reach 80% for ductility. In terms of thermal stability, a nano-branch of C-S-H
with CNTs performed very well in flexural and compression at room and elevated temperatures [36].
The high cost of nano-engineered materials, including CNTs, is one of the biggest challenges for mass
construction industry. Moreover, CNTs are not easy to be dispersed homogenously due to the strong
van der Walls force between them that is caused by the large surface-area-to volume (SA/V) ratio [245].
Furthermore, CNTs have a weak bond to the cement matrix due to the hydrophobicity of CNTs in the
presence of water.
While researches have been carried on finding the optimum thicknesses of different materials to
either isolate or conduct heat [246], advanced approaches have also been focused for isolation and
thermal conductivity. In this area, two general points of view have been documented: sustainability in
terms of saving energy required for air conditioners (i.e., isolation), and the sustainability of materials
that are needed for better thermal conductivity. An experimental and finite element numerical study
was conducted to assess the gained and lost heat between buildings’ walls and the surrounding
environment [247]. This study presented a concrete wall that had a gypsum layer inside the concrete,
in which the thermal insulation of the new wall system was enhanced. Another study was held
by implementing titanium dioxide and hollow glass beads as coating materials [248]. In this study,
experimental and finite-difference time-domain simulation approaches were used to observe the
improvement efficiency of the reflective and insulation properties of the thermal coating implemented
materials. The new coating films system was found to be superior in reducing the heat absorption
and cooling energy for buildings, and therefore the invested initial cost of this system can be paid off
through lower energy consumption during operation. Moreover, nanoparticle-based materials have
been used in construction as thermal insulation in different micro- and macroscale applications [249].
This study concluded that the thermal resistance between nanoparticles increased rapidly as the
particle contact radius decreased, and the presence/absence of chemical bonds between nanoparticles
played an important role, while using molecular dynamics simulation. The importance of using
macroscopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic studies of heat transfer and fire resistance were highlighted
for fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) in concrete and wood structures [250]. However, it would be worth
performing more exploratory multiscale researches, in which different nanoparticles are implemented
in the macroscale of different structural materials/members to study heat isolation and conduction.
Figure 3. A graphical conclusion for the most common reviewed candidates with their advantages and
disadvantages. FA: fly ash, RHA: rice husk ash, SF: silica fume, GGBFS: ground granular blast-furnace
slag, WG: waste glass, P: plastic, and CS: compressive strength.
While several by-products have been investigated, particularly in the short-term, more research
should be conducted in the long-term durability. More focus should be shed upon the alternatives for
the natural resources, in which their consumption damages the land, sea, and air. Additionally, to get
the benefits out of each by-product and overcome their individual limitations, more binary, ternary, and
even quaternary mixtures ought to be comprehensively documented. The most important advantage
of using these reviewed by-products is that they are waste materials anyway, and the other places for
them are landfills where they require land space, money, and much effort. However, the main obstacle
to extend the implementation of by-products, in general, is the need to control their quality before
incorporating them in concrete, and this process requires experience and may differ depending on the
source and application of these materials in construction. Additionally, the reliability of using some of
these alternatives (e.g., plastic, waste glass, etc.) has not been high enough, because they have not been
exposed to long-term field testing that must be conducted explicitly by researchers.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.L. and C.L.C.; Writing original draft preparation, A.A.-M.; Writing
review and editing, D.L., C.L.C., L.F. and R.P.; Supervision, D.L.; Funding acquisition, D.L.; all authors agreed
with the final version of manuscript.
Funding: The work described in this paper was fully supported by the grants from the Research Grants Council
(RGC) of the Hong Kong Administrative Region, China [Project Nos. CityU11255616 and CityU 11274516.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Meyer, C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 601–605. [CrossRef]
2. Klee, H. The cement sustainability initiative. In Proceeding of Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering
Sustainability; Institute of Civil Engineers: London, UK, 2004.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 20 of 30
3. Hendriks, C.A.; Worrell, E.; De Jager, D.; Blok, K.; Riemer, P. Emission reduction of greenhouse gases from
the cement industry. In Proceedings of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Interlaken, Switzerland,
August 30–2 September 2000.
4. Carbon Impact of Concrete. Available online: https://materialspalette.org/concrete/ (accessed on 29
August 2019).
5. Gartner, E. Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2 ” cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1489–1498.
[CrossRef]
6. Turner, L.K.; Collins, F.G. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer
and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 125–130. [CrossRef]
7. Hela, R.; Tazky, M.; Bodnarova, L. Possibilities of determination of optimal dosage of power plant fly ash for
concrete. J. Teknol. 2016, 78, 59–64. [CrossRef]
8. Li, G. Properties of high-volume fly ash concrete incorporating nano-SiO2 . Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34,
1043–1049. [CrossRef]
9. Ravina, D.; Mehta, P.K. Properties of fresh concrete containing large amounts of fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res.
1986, 16, 227–238. [CrossRef]
10. Ahmaruzzaman, M. A review on the utilization of fly ash. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 327–363.
[CrossRef]
11. Gamage, N.; Liyanage, K.; Fragomeni, S.; Setunge, S. Overview of different types of fly ash and their
use as a building and construction material. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Structural
Engineering, Construction and Management, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 15–17 December 2011.
12. Mahmud, H.B.; Malik, M.F.A.; Kahar, R.A.; Zain, M.F.M.; Raman, S.N. Mechanical Properties and Durability
of Normal and Water Reduced High Strength Grade 60 Concrete Containing Rice Husk Ash. J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 2009, 7, 21–30. [CrossRef]
13. Zareei, S.A.; Ameri, F.; Dorostkar, F.; Ahmadi, M. Rice husk ash as a partial replacement of cement in
high strength concrete containing micro silica: Evaluating durability and mechanical properties. Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 2017, 7, 73–81. [CrossRef]
14. Singh, B. Rice husk ash. In Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete; Siddique, R., Cachim, P.,
Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 417–460.
15. Reddy, D.V.; Diana, A.; Marcelina Alvarez, B.S. Rice Husk Ash as a Sustainable Concrete Material for the
Marine Environment. In Proceedings of the Sixth LACCEI International Latin American and Caribbean
Conference for Engineering and Technology, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 4–6 June 2008; Partnering to Success:
Engineering, Education, Research and Development. LACCEI: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008.
16. Nehdi, M.; Duquette, J.; El Damatty, A. Performance of rice husk ash produced using a new technology as
a mineral admixture in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1203–1210. [CrossRef]
17. Vigneshwari, M.; Arunachalam, K.; Angayarkanni, A. Replacement of silica fume with thermally treated rice
husk ash in Reactive Powder Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 264–277. [CrossRef]
18. Deb, P.S.; Nath, P.; Sarker, P.K. The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash
and activator content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete cured at ambient
temperature. Mater. Des. 2014, 62, 32–39. [CrossRef]
19. Crossin, E. The greenhouse gas implications of using ground granulated blast furnace slag as a cement
substitute. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 101–108. [CrossRef]
20. Lam, C.H.K.; Lp, A.W.M.; John Patrick, B.; Gordon, M. Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A Review. Sustainability
2010, 2, 1943–1968. [CrossRef]
21. Topcu, I.B.; Unverdi, A. Properties of High Content Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Concrete.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Sustainable Buildings Symposium, Dubai, UAE, 15–17 March 2017;
Firat, S., Kinuthia, J., AbuTair, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing Ag: Cham, Switzerland, 2018;
Volume 6, pp. 114–126.
22. Aliabdo, A.A.; Elmoaty, A.E.M.A.; Aboshama, A.Y. Utilization of waste glass powder in the production of
cement and concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 866–877. [CrossRef]
23. Islam, G.M.S.; Rahman, M.H.; Kazi, N. Waste glass powder as partial replacement of cement for sustainable
concrete practice. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 37–44. [CrossRef]
24. Lee, H.; Hanif, A.; Usman, M.; Sim, J.; Oh, H. Performance evaluation of concrete incorporating glass powder
and glass sludge wastes as supplementary cementing material. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 683–693. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 21 of 30
25. Soroushian, P. Strength and durability of recycled aggregate concrete containing milled glass as partial
replacement for cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 368–377.
26. Yao, Z.T.; Ji, X.S.; Sarker, P.K.; Tang, J.H.; Ge, L.Q.; Xia, M.S.; Xi, Y.Q. A comprehensive review on the
applications of coal fly ash. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2015, 141, 105–121. [CrossRef]
27. Siddique, R.; Khatib, J.; Kaur, I. Use of recycled plastic in concrete: A review. Waste Manag. 2008, 28,
1835–1852. [CrossRef]
28. Lamond, J.F. Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 2001; p. 26.
29. FHWA. Transportation Applications of Recycled Concrete Aggregate; in Pavement Design; Federal Highway
Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; p. 47.
30. Tsang, H.-H. Uses of scrap rubber tires. In Rubber: Types, Properties and Uses; Nova Science Publisher:
New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 477–491.
31. Lau, D.; Jian, W.; Yu, Z.; Hui, D. Nano-engineering of construction materials using molecular dynamics
simulations: Prospects and challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 143, 282–291. [CrossRef]
32. Sobolev, K. Nanotechnology Nanoengineering of Construction Materials. In Nanotechnology in Construction;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015.
33. Sobolev, K.; Sanchez, F.; Vivian, I.F. The Use of Nanoparticle Admixtures to Improve the Performance of
Concrete. In Proceedings of the 4th International Fib Congress, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 10–14 February 2012.
34. Alder, B.J.; Wainwright, T.E. Studies in Molecular Dynamics. I. General Method. J. Chem. Phys. 1959, 31, 459.
35. Wu, W.; Al-Ostaz, A.; Cheng, A.H.-D.; Song, C.R. Computation of Elastic Properties of Portland Cement
Using Molecular Dynamics. J. Nanomech. Micromech. 2011, 1, 84–90. [CrossRef]
36. Yu, Z.; Lau, D. Evaluation on mechanical enhancement and fire resistance of carbon nanotube (CNT)
reinforced concrete. Coupled Syst. Mech. 2017, 6, 335–349.
37. Yu, M.F.; Lourie, O.; Mark, J.D.; Moloni, K.; Thomas, K.F.; Rodney, R.S. Strength and breaking mechanism of
multiwalled carbon nanotubes under tensile load. Science 2000, 287, 637–640. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Chen, S.-H. Computational Geomechanics and Hydraulic Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2019; p. 7.
39. Song, S.J.; Jennings, H.M. Pore solution chemistry of alkali-activated ground granulated blast-furnace slag.
Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 159–170. [CrossRef]
40. Yu, J.; Lu, C.; Leung, C.K.Y.; Li, G. Mechanical properties of green structural concrete with ultrahigh-volume
fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 147, 510–518. [CrossRef]
41. Liu, J.; Yu, Q.; Zuo, Z.; Yang, F.; Han, Z.; Qin, Q. Reactivity and performance of dry granulation blast furnace
slag cement. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 95, 19–24. [CrossRef]
42. He, Z.-h.; Li, L.-y.; Du, S.-g. Creep analysis of concrete containing rice husk ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017,
80, 190–199. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, Q.; Wang, D.; Chen, H. The role of fly ash microsphere in the microstructure and macroscopic
properties of high-strength concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 83, 125–137. [CrossRef]
44. Halstead, W.J. Use of Fly Ash in Concrete; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
45. Ganesan, K.; Rajagopal, K.; Thangavel, K. Rice husk ash blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of
replacement for strength and permeability properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1675–1683.
[CrossRef]
46. Habeeb, G.A.; Mahmud, H.B. Study on properties of rice husk ash and its use as cement replacement material.
Mater. Res. 2010, 13, 185–190. [CrossRef]
47. Ahsan, M.B.; Hossain, Z. Supplemental use of rice husk ash (RHA) as a cementitious material in concrete
industry. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 178, 1–9. [CrossRef]
48. Holland, T.C.; Detwiler, R. Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete; ACI Committee Report: Farmington
Hills, MI, USA, 2006; p. 63.
49. Holland, T.C. Silica Fume User’s Manual; U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
50. Aly, M.; Hashmi, M.S.J.; Olabi, A.G.; Messeiry, M.; Abadir, E.F.; Hussain, A.I. Effect of colloidal nano-silica
on the mechanical and physical behaviour of waste-glass cement mortar. Mater. Des. 2012, 33, 127–135.
[CrossRef]
51. Taha, B.; Nounu, G. Utilizing Waste Recycled Glass as Sand/Cement Replacement in Concrete. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 2009, 21, 709–721. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 22 of 30
52. Bignozzi, M.C.; Saccani, A.; Barbieri, L.; Lancellotti, I. Glass waste as supplementary cementing materials:
The effects of glass chemical composition. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 55, 45–52. [CrossRef]
53. Flynn, R.T.; Grisinger, T.J. Slag Cement in Concrete and Mortar; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills,
MI, USA, 2003.
54. American Society for Testing of Materials. Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
55. Sarker, P.; McKenzie, L. Strength and hydration heat of concrete using fly ash as a partial replacement of
cement. In Proceedings of the 24th Biennial Conference of the Concrete Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia,
17–19 September 2009; Kaewunruen, S., Remennikov, A.M., Eds.; Concrete Institute of Australia: Sydney,
Australia, 2009.
56. Antiohos, S.K.; Papadakis, V.G.; Tsimas, S. Rice husk ash (RHA) effectiveness in cement and concrete as
a function of reactive silica and fineness. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 61–62, 20–27. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, M.H.; Lastra, R.; Malhotra, V.M. Rice-husk ash paste and concrete: Some aspects of hydration and the
microstructure of the interfacial zone between the aggregate and paste. Cem. Concr. Res. 1996, 26, 963–977.
[CrossRef]
58. Barnett, S.J.; Soutsos, M.N.; Millard, S.G.; Bungey, J.H. Strength development of mortars containing ground
granulated blast-furnace slag: Effect of curing temperature and determination of apparent activation energies.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 434–440. [CrossRef]
59. Bilim, C.; Atiş, C.D.; Tanyildizi, H.; Karahan, O. Predicting the compressive strength of ground granulated
blast furnace slag concrete using artificial neural network. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2009, 40, 334–340. [CrossRef]
60. Golewski, G.L. Green concrete composite incorporating fly ash with high strength and fracture toughness.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 218–226. [CrossRef]
61. Lam, L.; Wong, Y.L.; Poon, C.S. Degree of hydration and gel/space ratio of high-volume fly ash/cement
systems. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 747–756. [CrossRef]
62. Shaikh, F.U.A.; Supit, S.W.M. Compressive strength and durability properties of high volume fly ash (HVFA)
concretes containing ultrafine fly ash (UFFA). Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 192–205. [CrossRef]
63. American Society for Testing of Materials. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural
Pozzolan for Use in Concrete; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
64. Bui, D.D.; Hu, J.; Stroeven, P. Particle size effect on the strength of rice husk ash blended gap-graded Portland
cement concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 357–366. [CrossRef]
65. Chao-Lung, H.; Anh-Tuan, B.L.; Chun-Tsun, C. Effect of rice husk ash on the strength and durability
characteristics of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 3768–3772. [CrossRef]
66. Ismail, M.S.; Waliuddin, A.M. Effect of rice husk ash on high strength concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 1996, 10,
521–526. [CrossRef]
67. Marthong, C. Effect of rice husk ash (RHA) as partial replacement of cement on concrete properties. Int. J.
Eng. Res. Technol. 2012, 1, 6.
68. Molaei Raisi, E.; Amiri, J.V.; Davoodi, M.R. Influence of rice husk ash on the fracture characteristics and
brittleness of self-compacting concrete. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 199, 595–608. [CrossRef]
69. Rodríguez de Sensale, G. Strength development of concrete with rice-husk ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006,
28, 158–160. [CrossRef]
70. Zhang, M.H.; Malhotra, V.M. High-performance concrete incorporating rice husk ash as a supplementary
cementing material. ACI Mater. J. 1996, 93, 629–636.
71. Radlinski, M.; Olek, J. Investigation into the synergistic effects in ternary cementitious systems containing
portland cement, fly ash and silica fume. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 451–459. [CrossRef]
72. Ghasemzadeh, F.; Shekarchi, M.; Sajedi, S.; Moradllo, M.K.; Sadati, S. Effect of Silica Fume and Ground
Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag on Shrinkage in High Performance Concrete. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Concrete under Severe Conditions, Environment and Loading, Yucatan, Mexico,
7–9 June 2010.
73. Rafat Siddique, M.I.K. Supplementary Cementing Materials; Springer: Heidelberg/Berlin, Germany, 2011.
74. Aliabdo, A.A.; Elmoaty, A.E.M.A.; Emam, M.A. Factors affecting the mechanical properties of alkali activated
ground granulated blast furnace slag concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 339–355. [CrossRef]
75. Patra, R.K.; Mukharjee, B.B. Influence of incorporation of granulated blast furnace slag as replacement of
fine aggregate on properties of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 468–476. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 23 of 30
76. Pfingsten, J.; Rickert, J.; Lipus, K. Estimation of the content of ground granulated blast furnace slag and
different pozzolanas in hardened concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 165, 931–938. [CrossRef]
77. Iucolano, F.; Liguori, B.; Caputo, D.; Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R. Recycled plastic aggregate in mortars composition:
Effect on physical and mechanical properties. Mater. Des. (1980–2015) 2013, 52, 916–922. [CrossRef]
78. Duxson, P.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. The role of inorganic polymer technology in the
development of ‘green concrete’. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 1590–1597. [CrossRef]
79. Kim, J.H.; Kwon, W.T. Semi-Dry Carbonation Process Using Fly Ash from Solid Refused Fuel Power Plant.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 908. [CrossRef]
80. Sasmal, S.; Anoop, M.B. 7-Nanoindentation for evaluation of properties of cement hydration products.
In Nanotechnology in Eco-Efficient Construction, 2nd ed.; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Diamanti, M.V., Nazari, A.,
Granqvist, C.G., Pruna, A., Amirkhanian, S., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 141–161.
81. Solak, A.M.; Tenza-Abril, A.J.; Saval, J.M.; García-Vera, V.E. Effects of Multiple Supplementary Cementitious
Materials on Workability and Segregation Resistance of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Sustainability 2018,
10, 4304. [CrossRef]
82. Colangelo, F.; Farina, I.; Penna, R.; Feo, L.; Fraternali, F.; Cioffi, R. Use of MSWI fly ash for the production of
lightweight artificial aggregate by means of innovative cold bonding pelletization technique. Chemical and
morphological characterization. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 60, 121–126.
83. Kukier, U.; Sumner, M.E., VI. 9-Agricultural utilization of coal combustion residues. In Waste Management
Series; Twardowska, I., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 4, pp. 1003–1017.
84. Alaka, H.A.; Oyedele, L.O. High volume fly ash concrete: The practical impact of using superabundant dose
of high range water reducer. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 8, 81–90. [CrossRef]
85. Mehta, P.K. Properties of blended cements made from rice husk ash. J. Proc. 1977, 74, 440–442.
86. Zain, M.F.M.; Islam, M.N.; Mahmud, F.; Jamil, M. Production of rice husk ash for use in concrete as a
supplementary cementitious material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 798–805. [CrossRef]
87. Ramezanianpour, A.A.; Mahdikhani, M.; Ahmadibeni, G. The effect of rice husk ash on mechanical properties
and durability of sustainable concretes. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 7, 83–91.
88. Hwang, C.L.; Chandra, S. 4-The use of rice husk ash in concrete. In Waste Materials Used in Concrete
Manufacturing; Chandra, S., Ed.; William Andrew Publishing: Westwood, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 184–234.
89. Nguyen, V. Rice Husk Ash as a Mineral Admixture for Ultra High Performance Concrete. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 20 September 2011.
90. Olutoge, F.A.; Adesina, P.A. Effects of rice husk ash prepared from charcoal-powered incinerator on the
strength and durability properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 196, 386–394. [CrossRef]
91. Paris, J.M.; Roessler, J.G.; Ferraro, C.C.; DeFord, H.D.; Townsend, T.G. A review of waste products utilized as
supplements to Portland cement in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 121, 1–18. [CrossRef]
92. American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
93. Kurdowski, W.; Nocuń-Wczelik, W. The tricalcium silicate hydration in the presence of active silica.
Cem. Concr. Res. 1983, 13, 341–348. [CrossRef]
94. Khatri, R.P.; Sirivivatnanon, V.; Gross, W. Effect of different supplementary cementitious materials on
mechanical properties of high performance concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1995, 25, 209–220. [CrossRef]
95. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials. Standard Specification for Silica Fume
Used in Cementitious Mixtures; AASHTO: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
96. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Yan, P. Comparative study of effect of raw and densified silica fume in the paste, mortar
and concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 105, 82–93. [CrossRef]
97. İnan Sezer, G. Compressive strength and sulfate resistance of limestone and/or silica fume mortars.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 613–618. [CrossRef]
98. Ganjian, E.; Pouya, H.S. The effect of Persian Gulf tidal zone exposure on durability of mixes containing
silica fume and blast furnace slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 644–652. [CrossRef]
99. Jalal, M.; Pouladkhan, A.; Harandi, O.F.; Jafari, D. Comparative study on effects of Class F fly ash, nano silica
and silica fume on properties of high performance self compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94,
90–104. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 24 of 30
100. Tamimi, A.; Hassan, N.M.; Fattah, K.; Talachi, A. Performance of cementitious materials produced by
incorporating surface treated multiwall carbon nanotubes and silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114,
934–945. [CrossRef]
101. Sobhani, J.; Najimi, M. Electrochemical impedance behavior and transport properties of silica fume contained
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 910–918. [CrossRef]
102. Bhanja, S.; Sengupta, B. Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35,
743–747. [CrossRef]
103. Song, H.-W.; Pack, S.-W.; Nam, S.-H.; Jang, J.-C.; Saraswathy, V. Estimation of the permeability of silica fume
cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 315–321.
104. Choi, P.; Yeon, J.H.; Yun, K.-K. Air-void structure, strength, and permeability of wet-mix shotcrete before and
after shotcreting operation: The influences of silica fume and air-entraining agent. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016,
70, 69–77. [CrossRef]
105. Papa, E.; Medri, V.; Kpogbemabou, D.; Morinière, V.; Laumonier, J.; Vaccari, A.; Rossignol, S. Porosity and
insulating properties of silica-fume based foams. Energy Build. 2016, 131, 223–232. [CrossRef]
106. Boddy, A.M.; Hooton, R.D.; Thomas, M.D.A. The effect of the silica content of silica fume on its ability to
control alkali–silica reaction. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1263–1268. [CrossRef]
107. Li, Z.; Venkata, H.K.; Rangaraju, P.R. Influence of silica flour–silica fume combination on the properties of
high performance cementitious mixtures at ambient temperature curing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 100,
225–233. [CrossRef]
108. Stasta, P.; Boran, J.; Bebar, L.; Stehlik, P.; Oral, J. Thermal processing of sewage sludge. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2006, 26, 1420–1426. [CrossRef]
109. Liu, G.; Yang, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Su, M.; Ulgiati, S. Scenarios for sewage sludge
reduction and reuse in clinker production towards regional eco-industrial development: A comparative
emergy-based assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 371–383. [CrossRef]
110. Pavlík, Z.; Fořt, J.; Záleská, M.; Pavlíková, M.; Trník, A.; Medved, I.; Keppert, M.; Koutsoukos, P.G.; Černý, R.
Energy-efficient thermal treatment of sewage sludge for its application in blended cements. J. Clean. Prod.
2016, 112, 409–419. [CrossRef]
111. Lynn, C.J.; Dhir, R.K.; Ghataora, G.S.; West, R.P. Sewage sludge ash characteristics and potential for use in
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 98, 767–779. [CrossRef]
112. Baeza-Brotons, F.; Garcés, P.; Payá, J.; Saval, J.M. Portland cement systems with addition of sewage sludge
ash. Application in concretes for the manufacture of blocks. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 112–124.
113. Valls, S.; Yagüe, A.; Vázquez, E.; Mariscal, C. Physical and mechanical properties of concrete with added dry
sludge from a sewage treatment plant. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 2203–2208. [CrossRef]
114. Monzó, J.; Payá, J.; Borrachero, M.V.; Girbés, I. Reuse of sewage sludge ashes (SSA) in cement mixtures:
The effect of SSA on the workability of cement mortars. Waste Manag. 2003, 23, 373–381. [CrossRef]
115. Abdullahi, M. Characteristics of wood ash/OPC concrete. Leonardo Electron. J. Pract. Technol. 2006, 8, 9–16.
116. Raheem, A.A.; Olasunkanmi, B.S.; Folorunso, C.S. Saw Dust Ash as Partial Replacement for Cement in
Concrete. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2012, 4, 474–480. [CrossRef]
117. Cheah, C.B.; Ramli, M. The implementation of wood waste ash as a partial cement replacement material
in the production of structural grade concrete and mortar: An overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55,
669–685. [CrossRef]
118. Chusilp, N.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; Kiattikomol, K. Utilization of bagasse ash as a pozzolanic material in concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 3352–3358. [CrossRef]
119. Rukzon, S.; Chindaprasirt, P. Utilization of bagasse ash in high-strength concrete. Mater. Des. 2012, 34, 45–50.
[CrossRef]
120. Rajasekar, A.; Arunachalam, K.; Kottaisamy, M.; Saraswathy, V. Durability characteristics of Ultra High
Strength Concrete with treated sugarcane bagasse ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 171, 350–356. [CrossRef]
121. Kazmi, S.M.S.; Munir, M.J.; Patnaikuni, I.; Wu, Y.-F. Pozzolanic reaction of sugarcane bagasse ash and its role
in controlling alkali silica reaction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 231–240. [CrossRef]
122. N Dwivedi, V.; Singh, N.P.; Das, S.S.; Singh, N. A new pozzolanic material for cement industry: Bamboo leaf
ash. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2006, 1, 106–111.
123. Singh, N.; Das, S.S.; Dwivedi, V.N. Hydration of Bamboo Leaf Ash Blended Portland Cement. Indian J. Eng.
Mater. Sci. 2007, 14, 69–76.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 25 of 30
124. Villar-Cociña, E.; Morales, E.V.; Santos, S.F.; Savastano, H.; Frías, M. Pozzolanic behavior of bamboo leaf
ash: Characterization and determination of the kinetic parameters. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 68–73.
[CrossRef]
125. Frías, M.; Savastano, H.; Villar, E.; de Rojas, M.I.S.; Santos, S. Characterization and properties of blended
cement matrices containing activated bamboo leaf wastes. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 1019–1023.
[CrossRef]
126. Umoh, A.; Odesola, I. Characteristics of Bamboo Leaf Ash Blended Cement Paste and Mortar. Civ. Eng. Dimens.
2015, 17, 22–28.
127. Xie, X.; Zhou, Z.; Jiang, M.; Xu, X.; Wang, Z.; Hui, D. Cellulosic fibers from rice straw and bamboo used as
reinforcement of cement-based composites for remarkably improving mechanical properties. Compos. Part
B Eng. 2015, 78, 153–161. [CrossRef]
128. Correia, V.d.C.; Santos, S.F.; Mármol, G.; Curvelo, A.A.d.S.; Savastano, H. Potential of bamboo organosolv
pulp as a reinforcing element in fiber–cement materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 72, 65–71. [CrossRef]
129. Sooraj, V.M. Effect of Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) on Strength Properties of Concrete. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ.
2013, 3, 1–7.
130. Sata, V.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; Kiattikomol, K. Utilization of Palm Oil Fuel Ash in High-Strength Concrete.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004, 16, 623–628. [CrossRef]
131. Khankhaje, E.; Hussin, M.W.; Mirza, J.; Rafieizonooz, M.; Salim, M.R.; Siong, H.C.; Warid, M.N.M. On blended
cement and geopolymer concretes containing palm oil fuel ash. Mater. Des. 2016, 89, 385–398. [CrossRef]
132. Islam, M.M.U.; Mo, K.H.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z. Mechanical and fresh properties of sustainable oil
palm shell lightweight concrete incorporating palm oil fuel ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 115, 307–314. [CrossRef]
133. Dumne, S. Effect of superplasticizer on fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete containing
fly ash. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2014, 3, 205–211.
134. Awal, A.S.M.A.; Nguong, S.K. A short-term investigation on high volume palm oil fuel ash (pofa) concrete.
In Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore, 26–27 August 2010.
135. Nagaratnam, B.H.; Rahman, M.E.; Mirasa, A.K.; Mannan, M.A.; Lame, S.O. Workability and heat of hydration
of self-compacting concrete incorporating agro-industrial waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 882–894. [CrossRef]
136. Ranjbar, N.; Mehrali, M.; Alengaram, U.J.; Metselaar, H.S.C.; Jumaat, M.Z. Compressive strength and
microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar under elevated temperatures.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 114–121. [CrossRef]
137. ACI Committee E701. Aggregates for Concrete; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2016.
138. Forster, S.W. Recycled concrete as aggregate. Concr. Int. 1986, 8, 34–40.
139. Tavakoli, M.; Soroushian, P. Strengths of recycled aggregate concrete made using field-demolished concrete
as aggregate. ACI Mater. J. 1996, 93, 182–190.
140. Chen, H.H.; Su, R.K.L.; Kwan, A.K.H. Fracture Toughness of Plain Concrete Made of Crushed Granite
Aggregate. HKIE Trans. 2011, 18, 6–12. [CrossRef]
141. Etxeberria, M.; Vazquez, E.; Mari, A.; Barra, M. Influence of amount of recycled coarse aggregates and
production process on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 735–742.
[CrossRef]
142. Katz, A. Properties of concrete made with recycled aggregate from partially hydrated old concrete.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 703–711. [CrossRef]
143. Jain, N.; Garg, M.; Minocha, A.K. Green Concrete from Sustainable Recycled Coarse Aggregates: Mechanical
and Durability Properties. J. Waste Manag. 2015. [CrossRef]
144. Rahal, K. Mechanical properties of concrete with recycled coarse aggregate. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 407–415.
[CrossRef]
145. Rahal, K.N.; Alrefaei, Y.T. Shear strength of recycled aggregate concrete beams containing stirrups.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191, 866–876. [CrossRef]
146. Sagoe-Crentsil, K.K.; Brown, T.; Taylor, A.H. Performance of concrete made with commercially produced
coarse recycled concrete aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 707–712. [CrossRef]
147. Thomas, C.; Setién, J.; Polanco, J.A.; de Brito, J.; Fiol, F. Micro- and macro-porosity of dry- and saturated-state
recycled aggregate concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 932–940. [CrossRef]
148. Thomas, J.; Thaickavil, N.N.; Wilson, P.M. Strength and durability of concrete containing recycled concrete
aggregates. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 19, 349–365. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 26 of 30
149. Xiao, J.Z.; Li, J.B.; Zhang, C. Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial loading.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 1187–1194. [CrossRef]
150. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
151. Abreu, V.; Evangelista, L.; de Brito, J. The effect of multi-recycling on the mechanical performance of coarse
recycled aggregates concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 188, 480–489. [CrossRef]
152. McNeil, K.; Kang, T.H.-K. Recycled Concrete Aggregates: A Review. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2013, 7,
61–69. [CrossRef]
153. Kim, S.W.; Jeong, C.Y.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, K.H. Applicability of Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag for Precast
Concrete Beams Subjected to Bending Moment. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2014, 13, 633–639. [CrossRef]
154. Gholampour, A.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Performance of sustainable concretes containing very high volume Class-F
fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1407–1417. [CrossRef]
155. Qu, Z.Y.; Yu, Q.L. Synthesizing super-hydrophobic ground granulated blast furnace slag to enhance the
transport property of lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191, 176–186. [CrossRef]
156. Sanjuán, M.Á.; Estévez, E.; Argiz, C.; Barrio, D.d. Effect of curing time on granulated blast-furnace slag
cement mortars carbonation. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 90, 257–265. [CrossRef]
157. Majhi, R.K.; Nayak, A.N.; Mukharjee, B.B. Development of sustainable concrete using recycled coarse
aggregate and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 159, 417–430. [CrossRef]
158. Glass: Material-Specific Data. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-and-recycling/glass-material-specific-data (accessed on 21 February 2019).
159. EU Glass Packaging Closed Loop Recycling Steady at 74 Percent. Available online: https://feve.org/about-
glass/statistics/ (accessed on 23 February 2019).
160. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S.; Wong, H.-W. Management and recycling of waste glass in concrete products: Current
situations in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 70, 25–31. [CrossRef]
161. Jani, Y.; Hogland, W. Waste glass in the production of cement and concrete—A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
2014, 2, 1767–1775. [CrossRef]
162. Tamanna, N.; Sutan, N.M.; Lee, D.T.C.; Yakub, I. Utilization of Waste Glass in Concrete. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Engineering Conference, Energy and Environment (ENCON 2013), Kuching, Sarawak,
Malaysia, 2–4 July 2013.
163. Kim, I.S.; Choi, S.Y.; Yang, E.I. Evaluation of durability of concrete substituted heavyweight waste glass as
fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 269–277. [CrossRef]
164. Gu, L.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Use of recycled plastics in concrete: A critical review. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 19–42.
[CrossRef]
165. Europe, P. Plastics—The Facts 2017; European Association of Plastics Recycling & Recovery Organisations:
Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
166. Kao, E. More than 17 Million Pieces of Plastic Waste Flushed into Sea via Hong Kong’s Shing Mun River Each Year;
South China Morning Post: Hong Kong, China, 2018.
167. Schaefer, C.E.; Kupwade-Patil, K.; Ortega, M.; Soriano, C.; Büyüköztürk, O.; White, A.E.; Short, M.P.
Irradiated recycled plastic as a concrete additive for improved chemo-mechanical properties and lower
carbon footprint. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 426–439. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
168. Ismail, Z.Z.; Al-Hashmi, E.A. Use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as aggregate replacement. Waste Manag.
2008, 28, 2041–2047. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
169. Rebeiz, K.S.; Craft, A.P. Plastic waste management in construction: Technological and institutional issues.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1995, 15, 245–257. [CrossRef]
170. Saxena, R.; Siddique, S.; Gupta, T.; Sharma, R.K.; Chaudhary, S. Impact resistance and energy absorption
capacity of concrete containing plastic waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 176, 415–421. [CrossRef]
171. Jibrael, M.A.; Peter, F. Strength and Behavior of Concrete Contains Waste Plastic. J. Ecosyst. Ecogr. 2016, 6,
2–5. [CrossRef]
172. Saikia, N.; de Brito, J. Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and concrete preparation: A review.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 385–401. [CrossRef]
173. Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R.; Liguori, B.; Iucolano, F. Recycled polyolefins waste as aggregates for lightweight
concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 106, 234–241. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 27 of 30
174. Fraternali, F.; Ciancia, V.; Chechile, R.; Rizzano, G.; Feo, L.; Incarnato, L. Experimental study of the
thermo-mechanical properties of recycled PET fiber-reinforced concrete. Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 2368–2374.
[CrossRef]
175. Fraternali, F.; Farina, I.; Polzone, C.; Pagliuca, E.; Feo, L. On the use of R-PET strips for the reinforcement of
cement mortars. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 46, 207–210. [CrossRef]
176. Singh, N.; Hui, D.; Singh, R.; Ahuja, I.P.S.; Feo, L.; Fraternali, F. Recycling of plastic solid waste: A state of art
review and future applications. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 115, 409–422. [CrossRef]
177. Al-Manaseer, A.A.; Dalal, T.R. Concrete Containing Plastic Aggregates. Concr. Int. 1997, 19, 47–52.
178. Choi, Y.-W.; Moon, D.-J.; Chung, J.-S.; Cho, S.-K. Effects of waste PET bottles aggregate on the properties of
concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 776–781. [CrossRef]
179. Xuan, D.X.; Shui, Z.H.; Wu, S.P. Influence of silica fume on the interfacial bond between aggregate and matrix
in near-surface layer of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2631–2635. [CrossRef]
180. Jiang, L. The interfacial zone and bond strength between aggregates and cement pastes incorporating high
volumes of fly ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 1999, 21, 313–316. [CrossRef]
181. Thorneycroft, J.; Orr, J.; Savoikar, P.; Ball, R.J. Performance of structural concrete with recycled plastic waste
as a partial replacement for sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 161, 63–69. [CrossRef]
182. Ferreira, L.; de Brito, J.; Saikia, N. Influence of curing conditions on the mechanical performance of concrete
containing recycled plastic aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 196–204. [CrossRef]
183. Saikia, N.; Brito, J.d. Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in concrete. Mater. Res. 2013, 16,
341–350. [CrossRef]
184. Kan, A.; Demirboğa, R. A new technique of processing for waste-expanded polystyrene foams as aggregates.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 2994–3000. [CrossRef]
185. Hamdani-Devarennes, S.; el Hage, R.; Dumazert, L.; Sonnier, R.; Ferry, L.; Lopez-Cuesta, J.M.;
Bert, C. Water-based flame retardant coating using nano-boehmite for expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam.
Prog. Org. Coat. 2016, 99, 32–46. [CrossRef]
186. Ganiron, T.U., Jr. Sustainable Management of Waste Coconut Shells as Aggregates in Concrete Mixture.
J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 2013, 6, 7–14. [CrossRef]
187. Yerramala, A.; Ramachandrudu, C. Properties of Concrete with Coconut Shells as Aggregate Replacement.
Int. J. Eng. Invent. 2012, 1, 21–31.
188. Olanipekun, E.A.; Olusola, K.O.; Ata, O. A comparative study of concrete properties using coconut shell and
palm kernel shell as coarse aggregates. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 297–301. [CrossRef]
189. Gunasekaran, K.; Ramasubramani, R.; Annadurai, R.; Chandar, S.P. Study on reinforced lightweight coconut
shell concrete beam behavior under torsion. Mater. Des. 2014, 57, 374–382. [CrossRef]
190. Danso, H. Properties of Coconut, Oil Palm and Bagasse Fibres: As Potential Building Materials. Procedia Eng.
2017, 200, 1–9. [CrossRef]
191. Ali, M.; Li, X.; Chouw, N. Experimental investigations on bond strength between coconut fibre and concrete.
Mater. Des. 2013, 44, 596–605. [CrossRef]
192. Binici, H.; Yucegok, F.; Aksogan, O.; Kaplan, H. Effect of corncob, wheat straw, and plane leaf ashes as
mineral admixtures on concrete durability. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2008, 20, 478–483. [CrossRef]
193. Mo, K.H.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Yap, S.P.; Lee, S.C. Green concrete partially comprised of farming
waste residues: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 117, 122–138. [CrossRef]
194. Qudoos, A.; Kim, H.G.; Atta ur, R.; Ryou, J.-S. Effect of mechanical processing on the pozzolanic efficiency
and the microstructure development of wheat straw ash blended cement composites. Constr. Build. Mater.
2018, 193, 481–490. [CrossRef]
195. Ataie, F.F.; Riding, K.A. Thermochemical Pretreatments for Agricultural Residue Ash Production for Concrete.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1703–1711. [CrossRef]
196. Aksoğan, O.; Binici, H.; Ortlek, E. Durability of concrete made by partial replacement of fine aggregate
by colemanite and barite and cement by ashes of corn stalk, wheat straw and sunflower stalk ashes.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 253–263. [CrossRef]
197. Biricik, H.; Aköz, F.; Türker, F.; Berktay, I. Resistance to magnesium sulfate and sodium sulfate attack of
mortars containing wheat straw ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1189–1197. [CrossRef]
198. Al-Akhras, N.M.; Abu-Alfoul, B.A. Effect of wheat straw ash on mechanical properties of autoclaved mortar.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32, 859–863. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 28 of 30
199. Al-Akhras, N.M.; Al-Akhras, K.M.; Attom, M.F. Thermal cycling of wheat straw ash concrete. Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. Constr. Mater. 2008, 161, 9–15. [CrossRef]
200. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook 2013; China Statistics Press: Beijing,
China, 2013.
201. Lertwattanaruk, P.; Makul, N.; Siripattarapravat, C. Utilization of ground waste seashells in cement mortars
for masonry and plastering. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 111, 133–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
202. Yang, E.-I.; Yi, S.-T.; Leem, Y.-M. Effect of oyster shell substituted for fine aggregate on concrete characteristics:
Part I: Fundamental properties. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 2175–2182. [CrossRef]
203. Kuo, W.-T.; Wang, H.-Y.; Shu, C.-Y.; Su, D.-S. Engineering properties of controlled low-strength materials
containing waste oyster shells. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 46, 128–133. [CrossRef]
204. Eo, S.-H.; Yi, S.-T. Effect of oyster shell as an aggregate replacement on the characteristics of concrete.
Mag. Concr. Res. 2015, 67, 833–842. [CrossRef]
205. Yoon, H.; Park, S.; Lee, K.; Park, J. Oyster shell as substitute for aggregate in mortar. Waste Manag. Res. 2004,
22, 158–170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
206. Martínez-García, C.; González-Fonteboa, B.; Martínez-Abella, F.; López-Carro, D. Performance of mussel
shell as aggregate in plain concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139, 570–583. [CrossRef]
207. Chin-Peow, W.; Poi-Ngian, S.; Tahir, M.M.; Kueh, A.; Hong, B. Compressive strength of ground waste
seashells in cement mortars for masonry and plastering. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 727–728, 167–170.
208. Li, G.Y.; Zhao, X.H. Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace slag.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 293–299. [CrossRef]
209. Pu, L.; Unluer, C. Durability of carbonated MgO concrete containing fly ash and ground granulated
blast-furnace slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 192, 403–415. [CrossRef]
210. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary; American Concrete
Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011; p. 503.
211. Inti, S.; Sharma, M.; Tandon, V. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
Uses in the Production of Geopolymer Concrete. In Proceedings of the Geo-Chicago 2016, Chicago, IL, USA,
14–18 August 2016; pp. 621–632.
212. Ramani, P.V.; Chinnaraj, P.K. Geopolymer concrete with ground granulated blast furnace slag and black rice
husk ash. Građevinar 2015, 67, 741–747.
213. Mehta, A.; Siddique, R. Sustainable geopolymer concrete using ground granulated blast furnace slag and
rice husk ash: Strength and permeability properties. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 49–57. [CrossRef]
214. Jayalakshmi Sasidharan Nair, B.J. Study of Properties of Concrete using GGBS and Recycled Concrete
Aggregates. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT) 2016. [CrossRef]
215. Radonjanin, V.; Malešev, M.; Marinković, S.; Al Malty, A.E.S. Green recycled aggregate concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1503–1511. [CrossRef]
216. Kim, K.; Shin, M.; Cha, S. Combined effects of recycled aggregate and fly ash towards concrete sustainability.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 48, 499–507. [CrossRef]
217. Sunayana, S.; Barai, S.V. Recycled aggregate concrete incorporating fly ash: Comparative study on particle
packing and conventional method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 376–386. [CrossRef]
218. Darsanasiri, A.G.N.D.; Matalkah, F.; Ramli, S.; Al-Jalode, K.; Balachandra, A.; Soroushian, P. Ternary alkali
aluminosilicate cement based on rice husk ash, slag and coal fly ash. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 19, 36–41. [CrossRef]
219. Isaia, G.C.; Gastaldini, A.L.G.; Moraes, R. Physical and pozzolanic action of mineral additions on the
mechanical strength of high-performance concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 69–76. [CrossRef]
220. Tuncan, M.; Karasu, B.; Yalçın, M. The Suitability for Using Glass and Fly Ash in Portland Cement Concrete.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE) Congress, Stavenger,
Norway, 17–22 June 2001; Volume 4.
221. Berry, M.; Stephens, J.; Cross, D. Performance of 100% Fly Ash Concrete with Recycled Glass Aggregate.
ACI Mater. J. 2011, 108, 378–384.
222. Lam, C.S.; Poon, C.S.; Chan, D. Enhancing the performance of pre-cast concrete blocks by incorporating
waste glass—ASR consideration. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007, 29, 616–625. [CrossRef]
223. Madandoust, R.; Ghavidel, R. Mechanical properties of concrete containing waste glass powder and rice
husk ash. Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 116, 113–119. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 29 of 30
224. Younes, M.M.; Abdel-Rahman, H.A.; Khattab, M.M. Utilization of rice husk ash and waste glass in the
production of ternary blended cement mortar composites. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 20, 42–50. [CrossRef]
225. Popovics, S. Concrete Materials, 2nd ed.; William Andrew: Norwich, NY, USA, 1992.
226. Yu, Z.; Lau, D. Nano- and mesoscale modeling of cement matrix. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 173. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
227. Qin, R.; Hao, H.; Rousakis, T.; Lau, D. Effect of shrinkage reducing admixture on new-to-old concrete
interface. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 167, 346–355. [CrossRef]
228. Bruntland, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; Our Common Future: Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 1987.
229. Li, Z. Advanced Concrete Technology; John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 1.
230. Harbec, D.; Bahri, H.; Tagnit-Hamou, A.; Gitzhofer, F. New Silica Fume from Recycled Waste Glass; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 161–190.
231. Sanchez, F.; Sobolev, K. Nanotechnology in concrete—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 2060–2071.
[CrossRef]
232. Thomas, J.J.; Jennings, H.M.; Chen, J.J. Influence of Nucleation Seeding on the Hydration Mechanisms of
Tricalcium Silicate and Cement. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 4327–4334. [CrossRef]
233. Land, G.; Stephan, D. Preparation and Application of Nanoscaled C-S-H as an Accelerator for Cement
Hydration. In Nanotechnology in Construction; Konstantin, S., Surendra, P.S., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2015; pp. 117–122.
234. Yu, Z.; Zhou, A.; Lau, D. Mesoscopic packing of disk-like building blocks in calcium silicate hydrate. Sci. Rep.
2016, 6, 36967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
235. Gaitero, J.J.; Campillo, I.; Guerrero, A. Reduction of the calcium leaching rate of cement paste by addition of
silica nanoparticles. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 1112–1118. [CrossRef]
236. Qing, Y.; Zenan, Z.; Deyu, K.; Rongshen, C. Influence of nano-SiO2 addition on properties of hardened
cement paste as compared with silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 539–545. [CrossRef]
237. Flores Vivian, I.; Sobolev, K. The Effect of Nano-SiO2 on Cement Hydration. In Nanotechnology in Construction;
Konstantin, S., Surendra, P.S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Prague, Czech Republic, 2015;
pp. 167–172.
238. Yehdego, T.; Peethamparan, S. The Role of Nano Silica in Modifying the Early Age Hydration Kinetics
of Binders Containing High Volume Fly Ashes. In Nanotechnology in Construction; Springer International
Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 399–405.
239. Yaphary, Y.L.; Yu, Z.; Lam, R.H.W.; Lau, D. Effect of triethanolamine on cement hydration toward initial
setting time. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 141, 94–103. [CrossRef]
240. Foldyna, J.; Foldyna, V.; Zeleňák, M. Dispersion of Carbon Nanotubes for Application in Cement Composites.
Procedia Eng. 2016, 149, 94–99. [CrossRef]
241. Peigney, A.; Laurent, C.; Flahaut, E.; Bacsa, R.R.; Rousset, A. Specific surface area of carbon nanotubes and
bundles of carbon nanotubes. Carbon 2001, 39, 507–514. [CrossRef]
242. Petrunin, S.; Vaganov, V.; Sobolev, K. The Effect of Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes on Phase Composition
and Strength of Composites. In Nanotechnology in Construction; Springer International Publishing: Berlin,
Germany, 2015; pp. 245–251.
243. Sindu, B.S.; Sasmal, S. Properties of carbon nanotube reinforced cement composite synthesized using different
types of surfactants. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 155, 389–399. [CrossRef]
244. Abu Al-Rub, R.K.; Ashour, A.I.; Tyson, B.M. On the aspect ratio effect of multi-walled carbon nanotube
reinforcements on the mechanical properties of cementitious nanocomposites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35,
647–655. [CrossRef]
245. Kang, S.-T.; Seo, J.-Y.; Park, S.-H. The characteristics of CNT/cement composites with acid-treated MWCNTs.
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015, 308725. [CrossRef]
246. Kaynakli, O. A review of the economical and optimum thermal insulation thickness for building applications.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 415–425. [CrossRef]
247. Zhou, A.; Wong, K.-W.; Lau, D. Thermal insulating concrete wall panel design for sustainable built
environment. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 279592. [CrossRef]
248. Zhou, A.; Yu, Z.; Chow, C.L.; Lau, D. Enhanced solar spectral reflectance of thermal coatings through
inorganic additives. Energy Build. 2017, 138, 641–647. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5145 30 of 30
249. Meng, F.; Elsahati, M.; Liu, J.; Richards, R.F. Thermal resistance between amorphous silica nanoparticles.
J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 121, 194302. [CrossRef]
250. Lau, D.; Qiu, Q.; Zhou, A.; Chow, C.L. Long term performance and fire safety aspect of FRP composites used
in building structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 126, 573–585. [CrossRef]
© 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/).