[Link]

gov/pmc/articles/PMC7828242/

Green Concrete for a Circular Economy: A Review on

Sustainability, Durability, and Structural Properties

Abstract

A primary concern of conventional Portland cement concrete (PCC) is

associated with the massive amount of global cement and natural coarse
aggregates (NCA) consumption, which causes depletion of natural
resources on the one hand and ecological problems on the other. As a
result, the concept of green concrete (GC), by replacing cement with
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) such as ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), and
metakaolin (MK), or replacing NCA with recycled coarse aggregates, can
play an essential role in addressing the environmental threat of PCC.
Currently, there is a growing body of literature that emphasizes the
importance of implementing GC in concrete applications. Therefore, this
paper has conducted a systematic literature review through the peer-
reviewed literature database Scopus. A total of 114 papers were
reviewed that cover the following areas: (1) sustainability benefits of GC,
(2) mechanical behavior of GC in terms of compressive strength, (3)
durability properties of GC under several environmental exposures, (4)
structural performance of GC in large-scale reinforced beams under
shear and flexure, and (5) analytical investigation that compares the GC
shear capacities of previously tested beams with major design codes and
proposed models. Based on this review, the reader will be able to select
the optimum replacement level of cement with one of the SCMs to
achieve a certain concrete strength range that would suit a certain
concrete application. Also, the analysis of durability performance
revealed that the addition of SCMs is not recommended in concrete
exposed to a higher temperature than 400 °C. Moreover, combining
GGBFS with FA in a concrete mix was noticed to be superior to PCC in
terms of long-term resistance to sulfate attack. The single most striking
observation to emerge from the data comparison of the experimentally
tested beams with the available concrete shear design equations is that
the beams having up to 70% of FA as a replacement to OPC or up to
100% of RCA as a replacement to NCA were conservatively predicted by
the equations of Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE-1997), the
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-19), and the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA-A23.3-14).

Keywords: green concrete, cement, ground granulated blast furnace

slag, fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin
Go to:

1. Introduction

With the increasing risks of climate change and the depletion of natural
resources due to their utilization in the construction industry,
sustainability has gained wide importance and the term circular
economy (CE) has emerged as one of the most important factors leading
to sustainable development [1]. In contrast to the prevailing traditional
economy system, which is based on a methodology of make, use, and
finally, dispose of, the CE aims at continuous use of products by recycling
and reusing instead of disposing to create a closed-loop system and
reduce the resource consumption [2].

Evidence suggests that the increasing population growth rate is among

the most important factors for urban expansion [3]. Recently, records
have shown that compared to 1960, at which the population was only 3
billion, the population dramatically jumped to 7.2 billion in 2017 [4].
This dramatic increase is pressing on the environment, and thus
necessitates the allocation of more housing units and service and
industrial facilities. As a result, countries are undergoing a revolution in
terms of construction to meet the necessary needs.
From a construction perspective, the Portland cement concrete (PCC) is
recognized as the most important material that is widely used in
different structural applications with abundant raw material. Annually,
more than six billion tons of concrete are produced globally, which are
equivalent to 1 ton/capita on the planet [5,6]. Previous studies [5,7]
reported that in a cubic yard of concrete, 10% by weight contains cement
and around 0.9 tons of carbon footprint are generated per 1 ton of
cement. In the manufacturing process of cement, two basic raw
ingredients, namely calcareous material (i.e., limestone) and an
argillaceous material (i.e., clay), are melted at high temperatures of 1400
to 1650 °C, to be transferred to cement clinker [8]. Thus, this process
consumes massive amounts of fossil fuels, resulting in a huge carbon
footprint [5]. This is beside the carbon footprint induced by the chemical
reaction involved to decompose limestone (CaCO3) into (CaO + CO2)
[9,10]. The International Energy Agency (World Energy Outlook 2016)
estimated the global carbon footprint to be 21.6 billion tons, of which the
cement production accounts for 8% of the total carbon footprint
[9,11,12]. Furthermore, in the last decade, the cement industry has
become the second-fastest growing industry in releasing CO2 emissions
due to the growing worldwide demand for concrete [7]. Meanwhile,
recent statistics indicated an annual worldwide generation of slag and fly
ash (FA) wastes of around 270 to 320 million tons and 1 billion tons,
respectively [13,14]. Moreover, in the United States and Norway, the
annual output of silica fume (SF) was estimated to be of the order 2 ×
105 to 5 × 105 tons [15]. In Turkey, Baspinar and Demir [15] also stated
that 700 to 1000 tons of SF were produced from one ferrosilicon
production plant. Furthermore, the rice husk ash (RHA) is another highly
reactive pozzolanic material obtained as a residue from the pod of rice
grains, with a tremendous global amount of 156 million metric tons [16].

Coupled with the cement issue is the tremendous worldwide

construction and demolition (C&D) wastes originated from the
demolition and reconstruction of old structures, which creates another
source of environmental burdens. It has previously been observed that
annually, over 500 million tons of C&D wastes are generated worldwide
[17]. More recently, Akhtar and Sarmah [18] stated that a global amount
of C&D wastes exceeding 3 billion tons are generated annually, where
China, India, and the USA are the major contributors to this waste.
Subsequently, more land areas are being occupied and polluted when
disposing C&D wastes into landfills [19,20]. With this in mind, the global
annual consumption of natural coarse aggregates (NCA) has reached 40
billion tons [21], and it is annually increasing by 5%, whereas the highest
consumption was concentrated in Asia and the Pacific [22]. This
enormous consumption of non-renewable natural resources plays a vital
role in depleting natural resources in several countries [23]. As a result,
green concrete (GC) has been an object of research since the last century
[24]. It is usually referred to as concrete that contributes toward better
exploitation of waste materials, less consumption of natural resources,
and less carbon footprint [5,25,26,27,28,29,30]. According to Long et al.
[31], different strategies were implemented to achieve eco-friendly
concrete with improved sustainability. One is reducing the depletion of
natural resources by partial replacement of NCA with recycled coarse
aggregate (RCA) generated from the C&D wastes. Another approach is by
partial substitution of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) with waste
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), which were categorized
according to Liew et al. [32] in three groups: 1—industrial wastes such
as ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), fly ash (FA), and silica
fume (SF), 2—agricultural wastes such as RHA, corncob ash (CA), and
sawdust ash (SA), and 3—municipal wastes such as glass and plastics.
Furthermore, cellulose nanocrystals are other green materials extracted
from plants and trees, which when partially substituted by OPC can
cause a significant reduction in CO2 consumption with improved
compressive strength and fracture properties of concrete [33].

Go to:

2. Novelty and Research Objectives

Knowing that PCC production is one of the leading causes of global

warming and that there are extensive efforts worldwide to achieve a
sustainable environment, this study aims to contribute to the growing
research area of GC by conducting a comprehensive review on the
 sustainability, strength, and durability properties of GC to check for its
feasibility as an eco-friendly and structural material instead of the PCC.
The GC in this study will be limited to concrete that incorporates RCA as
a replacement to the NCA, and either GGBFS, FA, SF, or metakaolin (MK)
as a replacement to the OPC. This review paper will allow the user to
select the recommended GC constituents that would suit for either low-
or high-strength applications by determining the strength ranges either
above or below 40 MPa obtained from several studies available in the
Scopus database at a certain age, replacement level of cement with one of
the SCMs, and water binder (W/b) ratio. Also, this paper will give
insights into GC performance in terms of elevated temperature, sulfate
attack, chloride ion penetration, and freezing and thawing exposures.
Furthermore, this study will analytically illustrate the accuracy of the
available design codes and guidelines in predicting the experimental
shear capacities of the previously tested GC beams. Therefore, it is
intended from this review study to reach for the following:

 Discuss the sustainability benefits of GC on the environment, then

provide an overview discussion of the most prominent findings
concerned with the mechanical properties of GC in terms of compressive
strength.
 Investigate the durability performance of GC under different harsh
environmental exposures and then discuss the structural findings on
shear and flexural behavior of large-scale reinforced GC beams.
 Collect all shear behavior studies that partially incorporate RCA or SCMs
to replace NCA or OPC respectively, and then analytically compare their
concrete shear capacities with available design codes and proposed
shear equations.

Go to:
3. Literature Review

3.1. Review Method

The flow chart of the review process is shown in Figure 1. Before

commencing the analysis, several research papers were collected
through the peer-reviewed literature database Scopus. The total number
of collected papers was 1279. The collection was done based on five
search categories: (1) GGBFS concrete, (2) FA concrete, (3) SF concrete,
(4) MK concrete, and (5) RCA concrete. Under each search category, a
block of keywords related to either of four topics was identified, namely,
the sustainability benefits, the compressive strength, the durability
behavior, and the structural behavior of reinforced GC beams. As shown
in Figure 1, the subcategories under these topics referred to the main
points that were discussed and reviewed in the paper. The keywords’
block for each search category was specified after refining author
keywords or indexed keywords in Scopus. The logic operator “OR” was
used to combine the different search terms in each search block. These
search blocks were separately searched in the article title, abstract, and
keywords search term. Under the compressive strength category, studies
were only included in terms of replacing the OPC with SCMs such as
GGBFS, FA, SF, and MK, whereas the RCA concrete papers were excluded.
However, the RCA concrete papers were included in the remaining
categories. Moreover, all non-English, numerical, and fiber-reinforced
concrete articles were excluded. Based on this selection criteria and after
screening papers’ abstracts to check for relevant research, 114 papers
were collected for this review study.
Figure 1

The process used to conduct this review.

3.2. Sustainability Benefits of GC

Worldwide, waste is a growing public health concern. However,

recognizing it as a potential source of raw material for the industry
would enhance the resource efficiency, because following such a strategy
could establish a CE system, by which the materials loops will be closed.
Thus, minimizing natural resources depletion, reducing carbon footprint,
and eliminating wastes [6,34,35,36]. In the initial phase, the RC’s
ingredients are manufactured after supplying the factories with the
recommended raw materials, and waste by-products such as GGBFS, FA,
and SF to partially replace the OPC and to avoid their disposal into
landfills. This is followed by the construction processes and the service
life of the building. Whenever needed, the building should be refurbished
and repaired to extend its lifetime. At some stage, where the building
would reach the end of its life, the demolition action will take place and
the generated waste could be recycled for the same or another process.

In the history of sustainable development, the GC has been thought of as

a key factor in improving the three sustainability pillars: environmental,
economic, and social [25]. This is due to the circularity property found in
the GC technique, which will conserve cement and natural resources for
NCA, such as shale, limestone, natural rocks, and clay, reduce and save
landfill areas and costs, and reduce carbon footprint by reducing the
cement demand, which reduces fossil fuels consumption in the cement
manufacturing process [34]. Besides, utilizing GC would conserve the
water storage capacity of the ground and protect the natural habitat.
This is because aggregate deposits act as an underground water
reservoir, and when extracted through mining processes, the ground’s
storage capacity will be lost. Also, the water drainage patterns will be
changed because of the change in the slope of the land and vegetation
[34]. Therefore, using an eco-friendly concrete, which utilizes RCA
instead of NCA, or utilizes waste SCMs as one of its ingredients to
partially replace cement, might have a pivotal role in creating a facility to
improve the structural knowledge and maintaining a safe ecological and
economical solution. Also, the issue of disposing of these by-products
into landfills is a major environmental problem, as they contain a
significant amount of leachable toxic elements, which can cause
ecological harm to the water, soil, and air [13].

To date, several studies have conducted a comparative life cycle

assessment (LCA) between PCC and GC. For example, Knoeri et al. [34]
analyzed the LCA of 12 concrete mixes with RCA and found out that the
environmental impact was mitigated by 30% compared to their
counterpart conventional concretes (CC) with NCA. This mitigation was
due to the avoidance of C&D wastes disposal in landfills and the
recovered scrap iron from steel reinforcement. This matches well with
Yazdanbakhsh et al. [37], where two environmental impact indicators of
RCA including the acidification and smog formation were lower than that
of NCA by 16% and 17%, respectively. In addition, in their study,
Yazdanbakhsh et al. [37] demonstrated a 35% lower environmental
impact induced from transporting RCA to the ready-mix plants than
transporting NCA. Faleschini and Pellegrino [38] also showed that
replacing NCA with electric arc furnace (EAF C) slag in concrete has
decreased greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. According to Abbas et al.
[39], implementing the RCA in concrete has another advantage of
reducing cost, as aggregates are obtained locally rather than being
hauled from remote locations. The LCA of Shan et al. [40] was in line with
previous findings, where their results have shown a significantly lower
environmental load for the local RCA than the NCA imported from
overseas. Turk et al. [41] prepared GC mixes from three industrial by-
products, which are (1) foundry sand, (2) EAF S (which were used as
manufactured aggregates), and (3) FA (which was used as a mineral
admixture). Their results indicated a 25% reduction in environmental
impacts in the case of FA, 15% in the case of foundry sand, and 5% to
35% in the case of EAF S. Concerning CO2 emissions, the case of EAF S
showed only minor improvement, while it showed a very big
improvement in Eutrophication. Gursel et al. [42] investigated the global
warming potential (GWP) of RHA and FA blend concrete mixes through a
LCA approach. In comparison to CC, which resulted in a GWP of 544 kg
CO2-eq/m3, it emerged from their analysis that the mix with 40% OPC,
40% FA, 15% RHA, and 5% limestone flour showed the lowest GWP of
284 kg CO2-eq/m3 without considerable effect on the compressive
strength. This finding was also supported by Thomas [43], where an eco-
friendly, economical, and durable concrete was presented with the
partial replacement of OPC with RHA. While the carbon footprint from
normal concrete strength mix was found by Flower and Sanjayan [44] to
be 263 to 290 kg CO2-eq/m3, the replacement of OPC with 25% FA in one
mix, and 40% GGBFS in another mix, have shown a 15% and 22%
reduction in carbon footprint, respectively. In comparison to cement
production, less than a tenth of the carbon footprint is induced from the
GGBFS production, with less than a fifth of the energy required to
produce cement [45]. In a recent study by Yu et al. [46], the OPC was
replaced by not less than 80% of FA targeting a low-strength concrete of
30 MPa. Two material sustainability indicators were adopted in their
study focusing only on the manufacturing process of the material used,
which were the embodied energy and the embodied carbon content.
Interestingly, the GC mix was observed to exhibit 1/4 to 1/3 of both the
embodied energy and the embodied carbon footprint of the conventional
M30 concrete mix. This environmental improvement was accompanied
with a reduced cost by 35% of the M30 mix. A case study by Elchalakani
et al. [47] was carried out to prepare an efficient and low carbon
footprint concrete mix design to build the city of Masdar in the United
Arab Emirates. For this purpose, 13 different concrete mixes with 50% to
80% replacement of OPC with GGBFS were prepared. The test results of
concrete mixes made with GGBFS indicated a 60% reduction in the
carbon footprint, and therefore, a mix with 80% GGBFS and 20% OPC
was nominated for the future construction of Masdar City.

3.3. Strength Properties of GC

In this section, the compressive strength properties of GC, which

incorporate industrial SCMs such as GGBFS, FA, SF, or MK as one of its
ingredients to replace the OPC, will be studied and analyzed. Most of the
collected compression tests in this section were done on 100 mm × 200
mm cylinders and a few of the remaining were 150 mm × 300 mm
cylinders, 100 mm cubes, and 150 mm cubes.

3.3.1. Concrete with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)

The slag is a by-product produced during the manufacturing process of

steel [48]. It is made up of the same ingredients that make up the OPC,
such as alumina, lime, and silica, but with different proportions [49]. As
the slag leaves the blast furnace, it must be rapidly chilled to minimize
the crystallization of the molten slag and convert it into fine glassy and
granulated particles that are smaller than 4.75 mm in size [50]. The
granular product is then ground into fine powder to obtain the GGBFS
[51].
The results of compressive, flexural, and split tensile strengths for
several studies incorporating the GGBFS at different percentages in
concrete are presented in Table S1 in the Supplementary File. It has been
recorded that compared to the control mixture with 100% OPC, lower
compressive strength at 7 days was attained when GGBFS was partially
incorporated in concrete [50,52,53,54]. However, the compressive
strength of the GGBFS mixture specimens with 25% replacement was
higher at 28 days [52]. For 55% replacement of GGBFS, similar and
higher compressive strength to that of the control specimen was
obtained at 56 and 90 days respectively [52], while the higher
compressive strength was obtained at both ages in References [53,55]
when using 60% replacement of GGBFS. The optimum level of GGBFS
replacement which yields the highest compressive strength was found
by Oner and Akyuz [50] to be 55%. Interestingly, Oner and Akyuz [50]
noticed that for the same concrete workability, the water binder (W/b)
ratio reduces as the GGBFS replacement increases, thus the GGBFS has a
positive effect on workability as higher compressive strength can be
achieved with lower water consumption. For the flexural strength,
Khatib and Hibbert [53] showed that at 90 days of curing, the strength of
the 60% GGBFS specimen was enhanced by 19.6% compared to the
control specimen. Keeping in mind that the flexural behavior is sensitive
to microcracks, the finer particles of GGBFS along with the secondary
pozzolanic reaction can reduce the pore connectivity in hardened
concrete and as a result, enhance the flexural strength [45,56]. A similar
observation was recorded by Guneyisi and Gesoglu [57], where higher
compressive and split tensile strengths were achieved at a long time
period of 90 days with a replacement level of 60% of GGBFS.

The lower strength of GGBFS concrete at early ages was mainly

attributed to the slow pozzolanic reaction of GGBFS, which depends on
the calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 availability forms at later ages [50].
Through the pozzolanic reaction, an extra calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-
H) gel will be generated, which will densify the microstructure of
concrete, thus higher compressive strength of GGBFS concrete is
obtained [55]. To enhance the early strength of GGBFS concrete and for
further creation of the (C-S-H) gel, several studies suggested the addition
 of Ca(OH)2 as a hydrated lime [58,59]. Although the early strength of
GGBFS concrete was low, this deficiency might be eliminated when
adding superplasticizers (SP) at a low W/b ratio. The results for a 20%
replacement of GGBFS obtained by Johari et al. [60] revealed higher 7-
day compressive strength (79.6 MPa) than the control specimen (74.8
MPa) when 14 Kg/m3 of SP was incorporated at a 0.28 W/b ratio.
Whereas at 28 and 90 days, comparable and higher strength were
obtained at the 60% replacement level.

In Figure 2, the concrete compressive strength values obtained from

several tests in the literature [48,50,52,53,55,57,60,61,62,63,64,65] at 7,
28, and 90 days for different replacement levels of GGBFS at different
W/b ratios are plotted in Figure 2a,c,e. The ratios between concrete
compressive strength at different replacement levels of GGBFS to the
reference concrete without GGBFS are also plotted in Figure 2b,d,f to
show how close the GGBFS concrete specimens are to the control
specimens. The total number of tested specimens is 65. By referring
to Figure 2, the following conclusions can be observed:

 At 7 days, the GGBFS addition resulted in a lower strength compared to

the concrete without GGBFS, as indicated in Figure 2b. However, similar,
or closer strength, was achievable when 20% of GGBFS was added with a
W/b ratio ranging from 0.3 to 0.4.
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 20 to 35 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is in the range of 0.42 to 0.5 and when the replacement ratio
of GGBFS is ranging from 20% to 60% (Figure 2a).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 40 to 60 MPa and 60 to 80 MPa
can be achieved when W/b is ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 and 0.28 to 0.3
respectively, and when the replacement ratio of GGBFS is ranging from
20% to 60% (Figure 2a).
 The 28- and 90-day tests pointed out more gain in the GGBFS concrete
than the control concrete, therefore most of the GGBFS mixtures showed
closer lower strength, whereas some were greater than the control
specimens. This could reflect the effect of a secondary pozzolanic
reaction (Figure 2d,f).
 At 28 days, similar or closer strength to the reference concrete was
achievable when 20% to 60% of GGBFS was added with a W/b ratio
ranging from 0.3 to 0.42 (Figure 2d).
 At 28 days, concrete strength of the range 20 to 35 MPa can be achieved
when W/b = 0.5 with a replacement ratio of GGBFS ranging from 20% to
80% (Figure 2c).
 At 28 days, concrete strength of the range 40 to 60 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is of the range 0.3 to 0.4 and when the replacement ratio of
GGBFS is ranging from 20% to 80% (Figure 2c).
 At 90 days, the compressive strength for all concrete mixtures with
different GGBFS% and W/b ratios exceeded 40 MPa, except for 80% of
the GGBFS mixture at a W/b ratio of 0.5 (Figure 2e).
 The ratio of mean GGBFS concrete compressive strength to the 100%
OPC concrete compressive strength (f′c(GGBFS)/f′c(100% OPC)) was noticed
to be closer to 1 as time passed. This reflects the effect of pozzolanic
reaction, which develops at later ages by reacting with the hydrated lime
to densify the microstructure of concrete, thus, increasing compressive
strength.
Figure 2

Concrete with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) as a partially replacing
material for cement. Compressive strength vs. water binder (W/b) ratio at (a) 7 days; (c)
28 days; (e) 90 days. Ratio between compressive strength of concrete with GGBFS to
concrete without GGBFS at (b) 7 days; (d) 28 days; (f) 90 days.
3.3.2. Concrete with Fly Ash (FA)

The FA is a fine powder by-product resulting as a residue from the

burning of pulverized coal at high temperatures in electric generation
power plants. It is a pozzolan that comprises mainly silica and alumina,
which when mixed with water and lime Ca(OH)2 forms a similar
compound to Portland cement through the pozzolanic reaction [5], but
with a denser and less permeable microstructure [66]. It was reported in
the literature that among the worldwide FA production, only 25% was
used in the industry [67].

Table S2 in the Supplementary File summarizes the findings of

compressive, flexural, and split tensile strengths at different ages, where
FA was incorporated in concrete at different percentages. According to
Naik et al. [68], the addition of a high percentage of FA (50% to 70%)
revealed lower compressive strength than the reference specimen
without FA. This observation is consistent with Lam et al. [69], however,
comparable strength to the reference was achieved at a lower % of FA
(15–25%) at 28 days, while higher strengths at 56 and 90 days were
shown. This was limited to the specimens having low W/b = 0.3, whereas
lower strength was recorded at higher W/b ratios. Although the results
of Bouzoubaa and Lachemi [70] have shown increasing compressive
strength with decreasing the FA % from 50% to 40% and W/b ratio from
0.45 to 0.35, the targeted 28-day strength of 35 MPa was attained for all
mixtures. In contrast to previous findings, at 50% replacement of cement
with FA with W/b = 0.3, Atis and Ash [71] found the compressive
strength at 7, 28, and 365 days respectively, to be 48.3, 66.55, and 83.60
MPa compared to the control specimen strengths of 52.63, 64.55, and
77.08 MPa. Han et al. [72] concluded that the addition of 30% of FA has
improved the long-term strength at 365 days, while higher early strength
at 28 days was obtained when cement was substituted by 10% of FA.
Siddique [73] stated that the compressive strength continued to
decrease as the replacement ratio increased from 40% to 50% with W/b
= 0.4, however, the obtained strengths were sufficient for the use in
reinforced concrete structures. It has been demonstrated by Dinakar et
al. [74] that for low-strength self-compacting concrete (20 to 30 MPa),
the replacement ratio of FA can reach up to 70% to 85%, while for higher
strength grades (60 to 90 MPa), the replacement ratio can be in the
range of 30% to 50%. In their analysis, Nath and Sarker [66] concluded
that when partially replacing cement with fly ash, the 28-day strength
will experience a drop if no adjustment to the W/b ratio is applied.
Therefore, high-strength concrete of 67 MPa can be obtained at 28 days
when adjusting the W/b ratio from 0.41 in the specimen without FA to
0.31 in the specimen with 40% of FA. At 56 days, the strength was
 remarkably increased to reach 88 MPa, but no further increase in
strength was noticed beyond this age. The results obtained by Durán-
Herrera et al. [75] draw the attention toward the inefficient use of FA at a
replacement ratio exceeding 30% when W/b is equal to or above 0.5,
where a significant drop in the strength of 45% was reported at 28 days.
Beyond 7 days, the authors of References [76,77] pointed out that the
gain in strength for the FA concrete was greater than the reference
concrete at 28, 56, 90, and 365 days. By adjusting the W/b ratio, the
reference 28-day strength was exceeded at a replacement level of 20% to
40% of FA, but for a higher replacement level of 60% to 80% of FA, the
reference strength was exceeded at 90 days [78]. In addition, the FA
concrete indicated a superior flexural strength from 28 to 365 days.

The increase in strength when cement was partially replaced with FA is

attributed to the re-crystallized calcium carbonate and the creation of
additional (C-S-H) gel in the cementitious matrix, which was formed by
the interaction between FA and Ca(OH)2 that reduces the porosity of both
the transition zone and the matrix [79]. Also, the finer particles that fill
the voids between aggregates along with their spherical shape will
produce a better particle packing and a denser paste, thus the strength
will increase [80].

In Figure 3, the concrete compressive strength values obtained from the

literature [68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,79,80,81,82] at 7, 28, and 90
days for different replacement levels of FA at different W/b ratios are
plotted in Figure 3a,c,e. The ratios between concrete compressive
strength at different replacement levels of FA to the reference concrete
without FA are also plotted in Figure 3b,d,f to show how close the FA
concrete specimens are to the control specimens. The total number of
tested specimens is 63. By referring to Figure 3, the following
conclusions can be observed:

 At 7 days, the FA addition resulted in a lower strength compared to the

concrete without FA, however similar or closer strength was achievable
when 10% to 15% of FA was added with a W/b ratio ranging from 0.3 to
0.4 (Figure 3b).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 20 to 35 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is in the range of 0.4 to 0.55 and when the replacement ratio
of FA is ranging from 10% to 30% (Figure 3a).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 40 to 60 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is ranging from 0.24 to 0.35 and when the replacement ratio
of FA is ranging from 10% to 45% (Figure 3a).
 Similar to GGBFS concrete, the 28-day tests of FA concrete were
observed to show more gain in strength than the control concrete,
therefore most of the FA mixtures showed closer lower strength and few
were greater than the control specimens, except for those mixtures
having greater than 40% FA and W/b ratio from 0.4 to 0.6, where no
evident enhancement in strength was recorded (Figure 3d).
 At 28 days, similar or closer strength to the reference concrete was
achievable when 10% to 25% of FA was added with a W/b ratio ranging
from 0.24 to 0.35 (Figure 3d).
 At 28 days, concrete strength of the range 20 to 35 MPa can be achieved
with W/b of the range 0.5 to 0.6 or 0.24 to 0.45, with a replacement ratio
of FA ranging from 10% to 30% or 40% to 60%, respectively (Figure 3c).
 At 28 days, a higher strength grade of the range 40 to 60 MPa and 60 to
80 MPa can be achieved when W/b is of the range 0.27 to 0.4 and 0.24 to
0.36 and when the replacement ratio of FA is ranging from 10% to 55%
and 10% to 40%, respectively (Figure 3c).
 At 90 days, the FA mixtures exhibited more gain in strength than the 0%
FA mixtures. This could reflect the effect of secondary pozzolanic
reaction, which produces a higher rate of strength gaining in the long
term (Figure 3f).
 The ratio of mean (f′c(FA)/f′c(100% OPC)) was recorded as 0.66 at 7 days
and it keeps increasing up to 0.93 at 90 days. Although this reflects the
effect of pozzolanic reaction as in the case of GGBFS, the strength is
developing at a slower rate.
Figure 3
Concrete with Fly ash (FA) as a partially replacing material for cement. Compressive
strength vs. W/b ratio at (a) 7 days; (c) 28 days; (e) 90 days. Ratio between compressive
strength of concrete with FA to concrete without FA at (b) 7 days; (d) 28 days; (f) 90 days.
3.3.3. Concrete with Silica Fume (SF)

The SF is another efficient pozzolan with a highly fragmented structure,

that when used in the concrete, reacts with the lime produced from the
hydrated cement to reduce the pore size volume and capillaries in the
cement paste [83]. SF is a waste product produced in the metallurgical
industry from silicon alloys such as ferrosilicon, metallic silicon, etc. [84].
Its tiny particles are characterized by microscopic spherical shape with a
diameter ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers (μm) [85].

In the Supplementary File, Table S3 lists the compressive, flexural, and

split tensile strength results at different ages for several studies
incorporating the SF at different percentages in concrete. The most
prominent outcome to emerge from Table S3 is the higher early
compressive strength of SF concrete than the reference concrete at 7
days [83,86,87,88,89,90,91]. The compressive strength continues to
increase significantly up to 56 days, however, only a marginal increase
was recorded beyond this age [86,87,88]. The flexural strength was also
enhanced upon the SF addition, and the optimum amount of SF was
found to be 15%. This is in complete agreement with reference [90].
Although exceeding this limit decreases the strength, high-strength
concrete of 77.5 MPa was still achievable at 25% of SF with a W/b ratio
of 0.3 and SP of 12.6 kg/m3 [86]. Wong and Razak [88] prepared several
concrete mixes having 0% to 15% by weight of cement as SF with
different W/b ratios of 0.27, 0.3, and 0.33. Their results observed no
immediate enhancement in strength at 3 days due to the SF addition, but
from 7 days onward, higher strength than the control concrete was
obtained at all ages until reaching 17% increment at 90 days for 10% SF
concrete. This could be referred to the slow nature of pozzolanic activity
at early ages and the dilution effect of pozzolan. It was also noticed that
reducing W/b ratio from 0.3 to 0.27 did not excite a significant increase
in strength as expected. In their research, Bhanja and Sengupta [92] have
also studied the effect of several W/b ratios, namely 0.27, 0.3, 0.38, and
0.42 on concrete compressive, flexural, and tensile strengths with the SF
incorporation at 0% to 30% by weight of cement. It emerged from their
results that the optimum replacement level of SF for tensile strength was
a function of the W/b ratio in the mix, which confirms the previous
finding [70]. The optimum replacement level for tensile strength at 28
days was found to be in the range of 5% to 10%, while for compressive
and flexural strengths, it was found to be in the range of 15% to 25%. In
comparison to split tensile strength, the flexural strength demonstrated
greater improvement due to SF incorporation.

From the previous findings of GGBFS and FA, the 7- and 28-day strengths
were reduced compared to the control specimens without GGBFS or FA,
whereas comparable or higher strengths were achieved at later ages of
56 and 90 days. In contrast, the early age strengths at and after 7 days
have shown a clear enhancement over the control concrete when cement
was partially replaced with SF. This was attributed to the smaller size
particle of SF than the GGBFS and FA, which leads to an increase in the
pozzolanic reaction between SiO2 from SF and Ca(OH)2 resulting from the
hydration of cement [93,94,95,96], which generates a C-S-H gel that
grows into the capillary voids of the mortar, thus forming a denser
microstructure. Furthermore, the physical role of SF as a filler also aids
in the strength development, as the fine particles of SF would lead to a
reduction in porosity of the transition zone, and hence the interlocking
mechanism between the paste and aggregate is boosted [89,97].

In Figure 4, the concrete compressive strength values obtained from the

literature [83,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,98,99] at 7, 28, and 90 days for
different replacement levels of SF at different W/b ratios are plotted
in Figure 4a,c,e. The ratios between concrete compressive strength at
different replacement levels of SF to the reference concrete without SF
are also plotted in Figure 4b,d,f to show how close the FA concrete
specimens are to the control specimens. The total number of tested
specimens is 78. By referring to Figure 4, the following conclusions can
be observed:
 Unlike GGBFS and FA, the SF addition resulted in approximately a similar
and, in most cases, a higher compressive strength compared to the
concrete without SF at 7 days (Figure 4b).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 20 to 35 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is in the range of 0.36 to 0.57 and when the replacement ratio
of SF is ranging from 5% to 20% (Figure 4a).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 40 to 60 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 and when the replacement ratio of
SF is ranging from 5% to 15% (Figure 4a).
 The 28-day tests resulted in a higher gain in strength in the SF concrete
than the control concrete. Therefore, all the SF mixtures showed greater
strength than the control specimens (Figure 4d).
 At 28 days, most of the compressive strength values were >40 MPa.
High-strength grades of the range 40 to 60 MPa and 60 to 90 MPa can be
achieved when W/b is of the range 0.35 to 0.5 and 0.26 to 0.4 and when
the replacement ratio of SF is ranging from 5% to 20% and 5% to 25%,
respectively (Figure 4c).
 At 90 days, the SF mixtures continue to increase in strength beyond 100
MPa for 10% to 20% of SF concrete with a W/b ratio of 0.27 to 0.3
(Figure 4e).
 The ratio of mean (f′c(SF)/f′c(100% OPC)) was reported as 1.14 at 7 days,
then it was increased up to 1.24 at 28 days, but at 90 days, the mean
ratio remained as 1.24. This indicates the fast and minor strength
development at early and later ages, respectively.
Figure 4

Concrete with Silica fume (SF) as a partially replacing material for cement. Compressive
strength vs. W/b ratio at (a) 7 days; (c) 28 days; (e) 90 days. Ratio between compressive
strength of concrete with SF to concrete without SF at (b) 7 days; (d) 28 days; (f) 90 days.
3.3.4. Concrete with Metakaolin (MK)

Unlike GGBFS, FA, and SF, the MK is not a by-product, but it is made by
the calcination of high-purity kaolin clay at a temperature ranging from
650 to 800 °C [100]. The exposure of the kaolin clay to this range of
temperature is done to break down the crystalline structure and remove
the chemically bound water from the interstices of the kaolin so that the
material is converted into an amorphous aluminosilicate called MK [91].
During its manufacturing, the MK passes through a well-controlled
process that carefully refines the particles to drive off the inert
impurities, lighten its color, and results in a high reactivity powder with
high consistency in performance and structure [91]. In comparison to a
cement particle size of 10 μm, the MK has a median particle size of 1.3
μm [101,102].

Different studies that partially substituted the OPC with MK are provided
in Table S4 of the Supplementary File. Zhang and Malhotra [101]
reported that the compressive strength of 10% MK concrete has
exhibited higher compressive strength values than the control concrete
at all ages up to 180 days. This observation was further supported by
References [103,104,105,106] and when compared to SF, the MK
showed a faster increment in strength at the early ages of 3 days, which
also concurs well with references [98,102]. At a higher replacement level
of 20% MK, Khatib and Hibbert [53] outlined that no further
enhancement in strength was recorded. Also, Khatib and Hibbert [53]
concluded that the replacement level of 10% MK was the best, and it was
found to be superior to SF in terms of strength development, particularly
at an early age of 3 days, where higher strength than the control was
triggered, while for SF, higher strength than control was triggered at or
after 7 days. Dinakar et al. [107] indicated that at an optimum
replacement level of 10% MK, a strength value of 100 MPa can be
obtained at a low W/b ratio of 0.3. The same concrete mix has resulted in
28 days splitting tensile strength of 5.15% of its compressive strength
with a relatively high elastic modulus. Ramezanianpour and Jovein [108]
stated that the gaining level of compressive strength was developed at
lower W/b and with the increasing curing period of concrete. In their
 study, the optimum amount of MK for concrete with a W/b ratio of 0.35
and 0.4 were 10% and 12.5%, respectively. However, according to the
literature, the optimum amount of MK for 40 to 50 MPa concrete at a 0.5
W/b ratio was found to be 20% [53,102,109,110,111], whereas it was
found to be 10% for 80 to 100 MPa concrete at W/b of 0.3
[28,88,98,101,105]. The fast strength development of MK in concrete
was mainly attributed to the pore filling effect and the fast pozzolanic
reaction of MK with the liberated Ca(OH)2 during cement hydration,
which creates more bonds among the densely packed particles through
the formation of C-S-H gel [112]. Moreover, this could also be attributed
to a higher content of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), which caused much higher
pozzolanic activity [113].

In Figure 5, the concrete compressive strength values obtained from the

literature [53,74,88,91,98,101,102,103,106,108] at 7, 28, and 90 days for
different replacement levels of MK at different W/b ratios are plotted
in Figure 5a,c,e. The ratios between concrete compressive strength at
different replacement levels of MK to the reference concrete without MK
are also plotted in Figure 5b,d,f to show how close the MK concrete
specimens are to the control specimens. The total number of tested
specimens is 51. By referring to Figure 5, the following conclusions can
be observed:

 Similar to SF, the MK addition revealed higher early compressive

strength than the concrete without MK at 7 days. However, lower
strength was obtained when replacing cement by 30% of MK at W/b of
0.32 to 0.36 (Figure 5b).
 At 7 days, most of the compressive strength values were >40 MPa. This
clearly illustrates the high efficiency of MK in attaining high-strength
values at early ages (Figure 5b).
 At 7 days, concrete strength of the range 40 to 60 MPa can be achieved
when W/b is ranging from 0.32 to 0.5 and when the replacement ratio of
MK is ranging from 10% to 30% (Figure 5a).
 The 28-day tests have shown more strength gain in the MK concrete than
at 7 days. High strength grades of the range 60 to 80 MPa can be
 achieved when W/b is of the range 0.3 to 0.36 and when the replacement
ratio of MK is ranging from 10% to 20% (Figure 5c).
 At 28 days, high strength grades of the range 80 to 100 MPa can be
achieved when W/b is of the range 0.27 to 0.33 and when the
replacement ratio of MK is 5% to 15%, respectively (Figure 5c).
 At 90 days, the MK mixtures continue to increase in strength beyond 100
MPa for 5% to 20% of MK with a W/b ratio of 0.27 to 0.3 (Figure 5e).
 Even at 28 (Figure 5d) and 90 days (Figure 5f), when replacing cement
by 30% of MK at W/b of 0.32 to 0.36, lower strength than the reference
was shown, whereas higher strength was achieved at a higher W/b ratio
of 0.44.
 Based on the ratios of mean (f′c(MK)/f′c(100% OPC)) which were reported
as 1.15, 1.16, and 1.08 at 7, 28, and 90 days respectively, the MK is very
effective in gaining higher early strength at 7 days than the 100% OPC
concrete, but this effect turned out to be marginal at later ages of 90
days.
Figure 5
Concrete with Metakaolin (MK) as a partially replacing material for cement. Compressive
strength vs. W/b ratio at (a) 7 days; (c) 28 days; (e) 90 days. Ratio between compressive
strength of concrete with MK to concrete without MK at (b) 7 days; (d) 28 days; (f) 90 days.

3.4. Durability Performance of GC

Durability is one of the most frequently stated concerns with concrete as

the deterioration of RC elements could be related, at most, to the harsh
environmental exposures [65]. Hence, several durability studies will be
presented in this section to discuss the durability performance of GC.

3.4.1. Elevated Temperature

Poon et al. [114] evaluated the effect of elevated temperature up to 800

°C on the performance of eight normal and high-strength concrete mixes,
where MK replaced OPC at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20%. To achieve high-
temperature exposure, the test specimens were placed in an automatic
electric furnace. Compared to concretes with OPC, FA, and SF, the MK
concrete mixes attained higher compressive strength up to 400 °C,
whereas beyond 400 °C, a sharp reduction in compressive strength was
attained, followed by severe cracking and explosive spalling, which is
attributed to its dense micro-structure that allows the build-up of pore
pressure by steam [115]. However, the concrete mix with 5% of MK
showed better performance than the corresponding concretes at all
temperatures without spalling at failure [114].

The mechanical behavior of concrete, where the OPC was replaced by

weight with 20%, 40%, and 60% of GGBFS and exposed to temperatures
up to 350 °C has been explored in Reference [116]. It was pointed out in
the authors’ analysis that the deterioration in compressive strength,
splitting tensile strength, and elastic modulus of GGBFS concrete at all
elevated temperatures (100, 200, and 350 °C) remained below 40% at
28 and 56 days compared to the mix at room temperature of 27 °C.
Among all GGBFS mixes, the 20% GGBFS mix provided the best
performance and it could be suitably implemented in nuclear structures.
Li et al. [117] also utilizes GGBFS in concrete with replacement ratios of
10%, 30%, and 50% by weight of OPC to evaluate their performance
under high-temperature exposures from 150 to 700 °C for 90 days. The
mixes with a higher content of GGBFS have shown higher carbonation
depth, and in comparison to the control mix with 100% OPC, the depth
was measured as twice as great in the GGBFS concrete when the
temperature was raised above 300 °C. The compressive strength was
decreased with increased temperature, and this was more pronounced at
temperatures higher than 400 °C. As an example, the reductions in
compressive strengths for concrete with 0%, 10%, 30%, and 50% of
GGBFS were measured at 500 °C as 40%, 38%, 56%, and 59%
respectively, compared to the unheated specimens. Moreover, the
deterioration in the elastic modulus of GGBFS concretes was more severe
than the unheated specimens with percent retentions of 22%, 25%, and
27% respectively, for concretes with 10%, 30%, and 50% of GGBFS.

The mechanical and durability performances of high-performance

concrete mixes with 5% to 20% of MK and 20% to 60% FA were also
studied under elevated temperatures in Reference [118]. The concrete
mixes were exposed to temperature values ranging from 27 to 800 °C
followed by slow cooling in air or fast cooling in water. Generally, it was
observed that the exposure to 400 °C followed by fast cooling caused
more severe degradation in compressive strength. From a durability
perspective, the values of sorptivity and chloride permeability were
significantly increased for all mixes between 400 to 600 °C due to the
increased pore area fraction at a higher temperature. However, at
normal temperature, the MK specimens demonstrated higher resistance
against water penetration than the FA and CC specimens. On the other
hand, the lowest sorptivity was attained for the 20% FA mix at 600 °C
and above.

Recently, Rashad and Sadek [113] attempted to improve the

compressive strength of 70% GGBFS paste exposed to elevated
temperatures, namely 400, 600, 800, and 1000 °C for 2 h. The authors
suggested the addition of 2% to 10% of MK as a replacement ratio for the
GGBFS by weight. Their results have shown that the compressive
strength was enhanced with the increased content of MK before and
after the exposure to elevated temperatures. At 800 to 1000 °C, the
residual compressive strength for pastes with 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%
of MK were 10%, 15%, 20%, 27%, and 35% higher respectively, than the
control mix with 0% MK.

3.4.2. Sulfate Attack, Chloride Ion Penetration, and Freezing and Thawing

Li and Zhao [119] assessed the short- and long-term resistance to sulfate
attack of three concrete mixes, namely CC, concrete with 40% FA, and
concrete with a combination of 25% FA and 15% GGBFS (GGFAC). The
test was carried following the Chinese Standard GBJ82-85 by immersing
specimens with a size of 100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm in a solution with
2% of H2SO4 at room temperature. After 50 weeks of exposure, the
GGFAC was superior to CC and 40% FA concrete in terms of sulfate
attack resistance. Moreover, the change in weight of GGFAC was slow
and remained below 8%. This was followed by 10% in the 40% FA mix,
while in CC, the weight change reached as much as 16%.

McCarthy and Dhir [120] carried out durability-related tests including

chloride diffusion, permeability, and absorption for concrete with 45%
FA as a cement component. The chloride diffusion test was done on a
concrete cylinder slice of 100 mm diameter and 25 mm depth. The sliced
concrete was placed between saturated 5 M NaCl and Ca(OH)2 solutions
at 20 °C. Whereas, the permeability test was applied on a concrete core
of 54 mm diameter × 50 mm depth by recording the flow rates of air
passing through the specimen at various inlet pressures. The water
absorption of concrete was measured according to BS 1881: Part 208
[121] by immersing a 150 mm concrete cube in a 200 mm head of water
for 10 min. In their analysis, McCarthy and Dhir [120] found an enhanced
durability performance of FA concrete over the CC in all tests, but for
carbonation depth, the performance of FA concrete was similar to that of
CC, although, at low design strength, the FA concrete could result in more
unsatisfactory performance.
Hossain and Lachemi [122] investigated the suitability of high content of
volcanic ash (VA) up to 75% on the strength and durability properties
and noticed that compared to the control mix, the drying shrinkage (DS)
of VA mixes was slightly lower, however, all mixes experienced less than
600 micro-strains of DS. Moreover, increasing the VA content up to 40%
showed a decreased 91-day permeability from 2.23 × 10−10 to 1.58 ×
10−10 cm/s. Also, all VA mixes recorded a chloride ion resistance of 1000
to 3000 Coulombs, which according to ASTM C1202 [123] were
classified as low to moderate chloride ion penetrability. The mix with VA
beyond 40% was not recommended as it caused a sharp drop in
compressive strength.

Kim et al. [124] investigated the durability of concrete while

incorporating 0%, 5%, 10%,15%, and 20% of MK and SF. Properties such
as chloride ion permeability was reduced as the proportions of MK and
SF were increased. Up to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing applied as
per ASTM C666 [125], the relative dynamic elastic modulus of concrete
mixes with 0% to 10% MK or SF remain constant. The resistance of
concrete to carbonation was assessed by subjecting concrete to
accelerated conditions involves 5% CO2, 30 °C, and 60% relative
humidity for 7, 14, 28, and 56 days. Regardless of admixture type (MK or
SF) in concrete, the carbonation depth was higher than that of the
control mix (with no FA and SF) at all ages of the test from 7 to 56 days.
When assessing the sulfuric acid attack of 2% acid solution for 56 days,
the authors found a 20% reduction in compressive strength of mortar
specimens with 15% MK or SF compared to the control mix.

Hossain and Lachemi [126] replaced the OPC by 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%
of VA to assess concrete’s durability. Their analysis demonstrated higher
resistance of all VA mixes against chloride diffusion than the control
concrete with 0% of VA. This observation was also confirmed by
performing differential scanning calorimetry tests, which revealed
less Ca(OH)2 content in all VA mixes than the control mix. This
indicated that the Ca(OH)2 was consumed due to the pozzolanic
reaction and as a result, created a denser microstructure with very low
permeability.
Berndt [127] studied the effect of combining the partial replacement of
OPC and NCA with SCM and RCA, respectively. In their results, concrete
mix with either NCA or RCA was best performed in terms of mechanical
and durability behavior when 50% of cement was replaced with GGBFS.
Also, the presence of GGBFS in recycled concrete has decreased the
coefficient of chloride diffusion, however, this coefficient along with the
permeability coefficient was increased when FA and RCA were
employed. In a similar investigation by Kou and Poon [128], concrete
mixes with 0%, 50%, and 100% of RCA were prepared. In these mixes,
the authors also incorporated FA at different percentages of 25%, 35%,
and 55% to evaluate their long-term (10 years) performance in terms of
mechanical and durability characteristics. During this period, the
concrete specimens were either cured by water or air. The control mixes
with NCA have shown higher compressive strength than the recycled
concretes at all ages, but this difference was noticed to decrease with the
increase in the curing time. Although the recycled concrete had a more
permeable structure than the control specimens, the incorporation of FA
has led to a significant enhancement in the chloride ion penetration
resistance. As the RCA and FA contents were increased, the carbonation
coefficient increased. In general, the authors concluded that the optimal
concrete mix was that with 50% RCA and 25% FA. In a more recent
study, Faella et al. [129] combined the use of RCA with FA in concrete to
investigate its durability performance and found that although the
addition of RCA induced lower resistance to chloride-ion penetration due
to high porosity of RCA, the addition of FA can achieve a significant
attenuation of this phenomena.

Sabet et al. [130] measured the effect of FA and SF on the chloride

permeability, electric resistivity, and water absorption of concrete. After
90 days of exposure to sodium chloride (NaCl) solution, their analysis
showed that the incorporation of 10% and 20% FA caused a reduction in
the chloride diffusion coefficient from 7.9 × 10−12 to 4.7 × 10−12 and 3.2 ×
10−12 m/s2, respectively. For concrete with 10% SF, the chloride diffusion
coefficient was reduced to 5.6 × 10−12 m/s2. In addition, the 10% and 20%
FA concrete enhanced the electrical resistivity from 8.4 kΩ cm in the
control mix to 30 and 50 kΩ cm, respectively. However, the 10% and
20% SF concrete resulted in the most significant enhancement with 54
and 231 kΩ cm respectively, where kΩ refers to kilo-ohms. Moreover,
the final absorption of water was reduced by 20% and 39% when 10% of
FA and 10% of SF was incorporated in concrete, respectively.

Chousidis et al. [131] employed lower replacement levels of FA, namely,

5% and 10%, to partially replace the OPC in RC specimens. These
specimens were immersed for 130 days in a 3.5% NaCl solution to
investigate their mechanical and durability characteristics. In terms of
durability, the FA mixes’ sorptivity and capillary absorption were
decreased in comparison with the 100% OPC concrete. Moreover, the
mass loss of steel reinforcement embedded in 5% FA mortar was
measured theoretically to be equal to that of the control concrete after
13 months of exposure to NaCl. In terms of mechanical properties, the
compressive strength and elastic modulus at 100 and 130 days were
higher in the FA mixes due to the increased density caused by the
formation of additional C-S-H.

Singh et al. [132] examined the durability effect of 3% incorporation of

silica nanoparticles (SNPs) into concrete mixes having 30% to 50% FA.
The main durability parameters were the sulfate attack and the
carbonation depth, both were applied for 28, 90, and 180 days. The
sulfate attack test was carried out according to ASTM C1012 [133] by
slicing prisms of size 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm into 50 mm × 100
mm × 100 mm and immersing them inside a solution with 5%
magnesium sulfate. The carbonation depth test was applied in
accordance with the recommendations of RILEM CPC-18 [134] on
specimen size of 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm. The specimens were
placed in a 2% CO2 concentration chamber with 65% relative humidity
and a temperature of 20 °C. In comparison to concrete with 30% of FA,
the incorporation of 3% of SNPs in a 30% FA concrete has reduced the
carbonation depth and the sulfate attack by 73% and 39% respectively,
while a 35% and a 30% reduction was observed with the incorporation
of 6% SF, respectively.
Wang et al. [135] investigated the durability characteristics of concrete,
containing SF at 5%, 8%, and 11%, and FA at 10%, 15%, and 25% by
weight to replace the OPC, under the combined effect of sulfate attack
and freezing–thawing cycles. Prismatic concrete specimens with a size of
100 mm × 100 mm × 400 mm were immersed in 5% and 10% sodium
sulfate solutions and then exposed to 175 freezing–thawing cycles.
Conforming to ASTM C666 [125], one freezing and thawing cycle
involved 6 h, 3 h for freezing at −18 ± 2 °C, and 3 h for thawing at 5 ± 2 °C
in water. The test results indicated significant improvement in concrete
durability for concrete with FA up to 25% and 5% to 8% SF. More
freezing and thawing cycles (300 cycles) were applied by Uysal and
Akyuncu [136] on concrete mixes having 10% to 17% FA as a
replacement to the OPC. The results indicated no dramatic change in the
weight of specimens, however, the weight loss in FA mixtures was
greater than that in the control mix with no FA. The authors also
observed a 5.38% to 29.83% loss in the flexural strength of specimens
containing FA compared to the control specimens with 100% OPC.

3.5. Structural Performance of GC in Large-Scale RC Beams

3.5.1. Partially Replacing OPC with SCM

As discussed in the previous sections, the compressive strength of GC has

been analyzed by many studies; however, only a limited number of
studies were published on its structural behavior. For example, Yoo et al.
[137] evaluated the effect of high volume FA (HVFA) with a 35% and
50% replacement ratio of OPC on the flexural behavior of RC beams.
Their results have shown a quasi-similar behavior to the RC members
without FA in terms of cracking load, ultimate load, yielding load, and
strain, however, results have shown slightly lower elastic modulus and
higher mid-span deflection in HVFA beams than the control beams
without FA. This could be justified by the known 25% lower density of
FA than the cement material, which results in a 2 to 3% reduction in
concrete’s unit weight. A similar observation was noticed by Hashmi et
al. [138] where the ultimate and yielding state of RC beams with 60% FA
were identical to the RC beams without FA, but the RC beams with FA
have demonstrated higher deflection and strain values which were
attributed to the lower elastic modulus and splitting tensile strength of
FA concrete. Sangeetha and Joanna [139] observed that the moment
capacity in RC beams with a 40% replacement ratio of GGBFS was
comparable to that of the control RC beams without GGBFS at 28 days,
however, interestingly it was increased by 21% at 56 days. This could be
justified by the enhanced durability [139,140,141] and corrosion
resistance [142,143,144] resulted from the fine glassy shape particles of
GGBFS, which reduces chloride-ion permeability, and increases the bond
between particles [145,146,147,148,149]. Also, Sangeetha and Joanna
[139] reported that the crack width at service loads was found to be in
the range of 0.17 to 0.2 mm, which is within the limits specified by IS
456-2000 [150]. A more recent study by Hawileh et al. [151] involved a
higher replacement level of GGBFS by 70% and 90%. Their results have
shown a reduction in the strength and stiffness of beams with 90% of
GGBFS by 6% and 16%, respectively, but those beams with 50% and
70% of GGBFS were found practical and increased the ultimate load
capacity by 3% and 9%, respectively. Although 90% of GGBFS had
sacrifices the flexural strength and stiffness to a small degree, it has
increased the RC beams ductility.

On the other hand, the shear behavior of RC beams when 50% of OPC
was replaced by FA was studied by Rao et al. [152]. Their experimental
findings have shown a slightly lower shear strength of the FA beams than
the conventional concrete (CC) beams. On the contrary, Arezoumandi
and Volz [153] tested 12 full-scale beams with two FA contents by
weight (50% and 70%) and stated that the FA beams were virtually
identical to the CC beams in terms of cracking load, load-deflection
diagram, and failure mode, however, beams with FA were noticed to
exceed the code-predicted shear capacities by a higher margin than the
beams without FA. This could be attributed to the higher fracture energy
formed in the cementitious matrix of FA than the conventional OPC.
Alghazali and Myers [142] investigated the shear behavior of large-scale
beams with three replacement levels of FA by weight (50%, 60%, and
70%) and two different longitudinal reinforcement ratios ρ (1.59% and
2.71%). The FA beams exhibited higher shear strength than the CC ones
at a lower ρ of 1.59%, whereas no obvious increase in the ultimate shear
capacity was observed at higher ρ of 2.71% but the diagonal shear crack
propagation was delayed between 10 to 24%. This observation is
referred to the use of a small aggregate size of 10 mm which decreases
the crack surface’s roughness and minimizes the effect of the
longitudinal reinforcement to prevent slippage.
3.5.2. Partially Replacing NCA with RCA
Central to the entire discipline of sustainable construction is the concept
of utilizing RCA in RC structures. In China, the RCA concrete was
successfully implemented at various pavements and building structures
[154]. Hoffmann et al. [155] have also highlighted that the RCA was
suitably used in a wide variety of reinforced concrete members.
Numerous studies have attempted to relate the inferior properties of
RCA concrete to the weak interfacial transition zone between the
recycled aggregate and the new cement paste
[156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163], which is mainly attributed to the
old layer of mortar adhered to the surface of aggregate [164] that is
characterized by loose, porous and micro-cracked surface [159,165]. In
their study Han et al. [166] stated that the RC beams with 100% RCA
showed larger deflection and less shear strength than the control beams
with virgin aggregate. However, Al Mahmoud [167] reported similar
shear behavior of the RCA beams compared to the NCA beams in terms
of the load-deflection diagram. González-Fonteboa and Martínez-Abella
[168] have investigated the shear behavior of recycled concrete with
50% RCA and highlighted little differences in terms of midspan
deflection and ultimate load capacity. However, notable splitting cracks
and premature cracking were observed along the tension reinforcement
of the recycled concrete beams. Etxeberria et al. [169] explored the
possibility of implementing the RCA as a structural material in RC beams
by replacing the virgin aggregates by 25%, 50%, and 100% of RCA. The
beam specimens with 50% and 100% of RCA demonstrated similar shear
capacity as the control beams with 0% of RCA, but a reduction of 13%
was observed for beams with 25% of RCA. Also, it was noticed that the
addition of RCA has reduced the cracking load due to the occurrence of
cracking at the weakest point which is the adhered mortar on the surface
of RCA. Fathifazl et al. [170] observed that the shear capacity of recycled
RC beams with 64% and 74% replacement level of RCA tended to
increase at lower shear span to depth (as/d) ratio as a result of the arch
action mechanism. Furthermore, Fathifazl et al. [170] observed that the
shear capacity tended to increase when the overall depth of the beam
was decreased. These two observations indicated that the recycled RC
beams conformed well to the known behavior of conventional RC beams.
Knaack and Kurama [171] prepared two types of recycled concrete
mixes, one with 50% of RCA, and one with 100% of RCA. These mixes
were utilized in full-scale RC beams to investigate their flexural and
shear behavior. The tested beams exhibited lower initial stiffness and
higher ultimate flexural deflection as the RCA replacement level was
increased, whereas a relatively small change in the shear and flexural
strength was noticed in comparison to the conventional beams with NCA.
Arezoumandi et al. [172] undertaken an experimental work that
investigates the shear behavior of RC beams where the NCA was totally
replaced with RCA. What was emerged from this study is that the beams
with 100% RCA were virtually identical to the CC beams in terms of load
deflection response, crack progression, and crack morphology.

3.6. Comparing the Experimental Shear Capacities with Major Design

Code Provisions
The available RC design codes; in the design process of an RC beam;
specify certain limits on the flexural reinforcement quantity to resist the
applied moment first, and to ensure a gradual flexural failure second.
However, this is not the case for failure under shear, which usually
behaves in a brittle manner with little or without prior warning.
Consequently, it is important to analytically investigate the ability of
major RC design codes in predicting the experimental concrete shear
capacity ( Vc) of RC beams; where NCA and OPC are replaced with RCA
and SCMs, respectively.

In this section, the concrete shear capacity will be evaluated according to

several design codes namely, AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173], ACI 318-19
[174], CSA-A23.3-14 [175], and JSCE-1997 [176] and a proposed
equation by Xu et al. [177]. The simplified shear design methods are
listed in Table 1. For analysis, two sets of beams were collected from the
available literature
[141,142,166,169,170,171,172,178,179,180,181,182]. The first set
consisted of 35 RC beams, 28 of whom the OPC was partially replaced
with SCM, while in the remaining 7 RC beams the OPC and the NCA were
both replaced with SCM and RCA, respectively as can be noticed in Table
2. The second set consisted of 41 beams on which the NCA only was
partially replaced with RCA (Table 3).

Table 1
Summary of code provisions and simplified shear design methods.
Code/Researcher Equations

Vc=βdβpβnfvcdbwd/γb
fvcd=0.2f'c−−−√3 , where fvcd≤0.72 (

βd=1000/d−−−−−−√4
N/mm2)

βp=100ρ−−−−√3
JSCE-1997

βn=1
γb=member factor taken as 1.10

ACI 318-19 Vc=0.17λf′c−−−√ bwd

Vc=0.083β1λf′c−−−√ bvdv
β1=4.81+750εs,εs=Mudv+VuEsAs
AASHTO LRFD-2012

Vc=Φc β2λf′c−−−√ bwdv

β2=2301000+sze ,sze=35dv15+ag
CSA-A23.3-14

Vc=1.018d√(das)13ρ16(1−ρ√)23(0.0255f
(Xu et al. 2012)
′c+1.24)bwd

Open in a separate window

depth, λ=1, β1= factor indicating the ability of diagonally cracked concrete to transmit
f′c= Concrete compressive strength, bw= beam width, d= beam effective

tension and shear, εs= the longitudinal tensile strain at the centroid of the tension
reinforcement, Mu= the factored moment, which should not be taken less
than Vudv, Vu= the factored shear force, Es= the young’s modulus, As= the tensile
reinforcement area, bv= effective web width taken as the minimum web width between
the resultants of tensile and compressive forces due to flexure, dv= effective shear depth. It
need not be less than the greater of 0.9d or 0.72 times beam height (h), Φc= the resistance
factor for concrete. Selected as 1 in this study, sze is a crack spacing
parameter, ag= maximum aggregate size, as= shear span length of the beam.
Table 2
Experimental and predicted shear capacities for reinforced concrete beams with partial
SCM%.
Vexp/Vpred

Experim
AAS Xu
SC bw ( h ( d ( ag ( f′c a ental JS AC CS
RC HTO et
Source M ρ mm mm mm m (MP s/ Shear, CE I A-
A% LRF al.
% ) ) ) m) a) d Vc (kN - 31 A2
D [1
) 19 8- 3.3
201 77
97 19 -14
2 ]

50
0.0 3. 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0
(FA 305 457 396 19 30.7 127 0.70
126 0 6 2 6 4
)

50
0.0 3. 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2
(FA 305 457 396 19 20.7 134.1 0.92
126 0 3 4 9 6
)

50
0.0 3. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3
(FA 305 457 375 19 30.7 163.9 0.91
Arezou 199 2 6 2 6 3
)
mandi
-
et al.
50
[181] 0.0 3. 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.2
(FA 305 457 375 19 20.7 133.7 0.86
199 2 6 1 5 5
)

50
0.0 3. 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3
(FA 305 457 375 19 30.7 164.8 0.85
266 2 3 3 7 0
)

50
0.0 3. 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.4
(FA 305 457 375 19 20.7 163.7 1.03
266 2 2 5 0 8
)

Arezou 70 - 0.0 305 457 396 19 22 3. 140.7 1.5 1.4 0.88 1.5 1.2
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
AAS Xu
SC bw ( h ( d ( ag ( f′c a ental JS AC CS
RC HTO et
Source M ρ mm mm mm m (MP s/ Shear, CE I A-
A% LRF al.
% ) ) ) m) a) d Vc (kN - 31 A2
D [1
) 19 8- 3.3
201 77
97 19 -14
2 ]

mandi (FA
157 0 6 6 2 6
et al. )
[182]
70
0.0 3. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2
(FA 305 457 375 19 22 131.9 0.82
199 2 1 5 8 1
)

70
0.0 3. 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.5
(FA 305 457 375 19 22 170.9 1.05
266 2 6 7 2 2
)

70
0.0 3. 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.4
(FA 305 457 375 19 21.6 162.9 1.00
266 2 9 0 5 5
)

70
0.0 3. 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0
(FA 305 457 396 19 30.7 134.3 0.63
252 0 4 8 3 2
)

70
0.0 3. 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.0
(FA 305 457 396 19 20.7 122.8 0.69
252 0 9 1 7 7
)

70
0.0 3. 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1
(FA 305 457 375 19 30.7 150.4 0.76
266 2 0 0 3 9
)

70
0.0 3. 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.5
(FA 305 457 375 19 20.7 168.1 1.06
266 2 6 0 5 2
)

70 0.0 305 457 375 19 30.7 3. 162.4 1.4 1.5 0.84 1.5 1.2
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
AAS Xu
SC bw ( h ( d ( ag ( f′c a ental JS AC CS
RC HTO et
Source M ρ mm mm mm m (MP s/ Shear, CE I A-
A% LRF al.
% ) ) ) m) a) d Vc (kN - 31 A2
D [1
) 19 8- 3.3
201 77
97 19 -14
2 ]

(FA
266 2 1 1 4 8
)

70
0.0 3. 1.9 2.2 2.3 1.8
(FA 305 457 375 19 20.7 201.5 1.34
266 2 9 8 3 2
)

Alghaz 50 -
0.0 3. 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9
ali and (FA 305 457 396 25 53.5 149.2 0.61
157 1 9 9 9 3
Myers )
[142]
50
0.0 3. 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9
(FA 305 457 375 25 53.5 143.8 0.58
199 3 9 1 9 1
)

50
0.0 3. 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8
(FA 305 457 375 25 53.5 144 0.55
266 3 9 1 9 9
)

60
0.0 3. 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9
(FA 305 457 396 25 45.9 142.5 0.62
157 1 4 2 2 6
)

60
0.0 3. 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2
(FA 305 457 375 25 45.9 175.7 0.82
199 3 7 3 1 1
)

60
0.0 3. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
(FA 305 457 375 25 45.9 150.6 0.62
266 3 4 4 2 0
)

70 0.0 305 457 396 25 52.9 3. 146.6 1.2 0.9 0.60 0.9 0.9
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
AAS Xu
SC bw ( h ( d ( ag ( f′c a ental JS AC CS
RC HTO et
Source M ρ mm mm mm m (MP s/ Shear, CE I A-
A% LRF al.
% ) ) ) m) a) d Vc (kN - 31 A2
D [1
) 19 8- 3.3
201 77
97 19 -14
2 ]

(FA
157 1 6 8 8 2
)

70
0.0 3. 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0
(FA 305 457 375 25 52.9 162.2 0.69
199 3 5 5 3 4
)

70
0.0 3. 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9
(FA 305 457 375 25 52.9 154.7 0.60
266 3 7 9 7 6
)

50
0.0 3. 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9
(FA 50 305 460 396 25 30.8 120.5 0.65
126 0 9 6 5 9
)

Sadati 50
0.0 3. 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
et al. (FA 50 305 460 375 25 30.8 140.8 0.75
199 2 4 0 8 5
[178] )

50
0.0 3. 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0
(FA 50 305 460 375 25 30.8 136.3 0.68
266 2 8 6 4 7
)

Lisanto 50
0.0 3. 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.7
no et (FA - 150 260 214 25 15.3 57.3 2.24
106 5 4 8 6 3
al. )
[182]
60 0.0 150 260 214 25 13.7 3. 48.9 1.1 2.4 1.13 2.1 1.2
(FA 947 5 3 2 2 5
)
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
AAS Xu
SC bw ( h ( d ( ag ( f′c a ental JS AC CS
RC HTO et
Source M ρ mm mm mm m (MP s/ Shear, CE I A-
A% LRF al.
% ) ) ) m) a) d Vc (kN - 31 A2
D [1
) 19 8- 3.3
201 77
97 19 -14
2 ]

70
0.0 3. 1.0 2.2 1.9 1.1
(FA 150 260 214 25 11.7 41.9 1.03
947 5 2 4 7 1
)

20
10 0.0 47.2 2. 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
(FA 200 300 267 20 82.15 1.86
0 038 6 6 3 2 3 6
)

30
10 0.0 45.5 2. 2.3 1.3 1.2 1.1
(FA 200 300 267 20 81.8 1.88
Sunaya 0 038 5 6 5 4 5 8
)
na and
Barai
20
[141] 10 0.0 46.1 2. 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.3
(FA 200 300 267 20 101.72 1.73
0 074 1 6 3 5 5 3
)

30
10 0.0 2. 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.1
(FA 200 300 267 20 47.6 87.49 1.35
0 074 6 8 0 1 3
)

1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2

Mean - - - - - - - - - - 0.95
1 7 5 0

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

SD - - - - - - - - - - 0.41
0 2 8 2

26. 28. 42.7 26. 18.

COV% - - - - - - - - - -
35 72 8 30 61

Open in a separate window

Table 3
Experimental and predicted shear capacities for reinforced concrete beams with partial or
total RCA%.
Vexp/Vpred

Experim
bw ( h( d( ag ( f′c CSA Xu
RC as ental JSC ACI AAS
Source ρ mm mm mm mm (MP - et
A% /d Shear, E- 31 HTO
) ) ) ) a) A23 al.
Vc (kN) 19 8- LRFD
.3- [17
97 19 2012
14 7]

Han et 10 0.0 1. 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.0

170 300 270 25 39.6 83.5 1.40
al. [166] 0 11 5 5 0 6 8

10 0.0 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.0

- 170 300 270 25 30.6 2 65.2 1.11
0 11 4 1 3 3

10 0.0 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.9

- 170 300 270 25 32.6 2 60.6 0.97
0 11 9 6 2 4

10 0.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.7

- 170 300 270 25 31.2 3 42.7 0.62
0 11 3 8 0 7

10 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

- 170 300 270 25 31.9 4 31.7 0.42
0 11 4 2 4 2

Belen
and 0.0 3. 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.0
50 200 350 303 25 39.7 90.6 0.76
Fernand 30 3 4 0 4 9
o [179]

Etxeber
0.0 3. 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.2
ria et al. 25 200 350 303 25 42.4 104 0.88
30 3 9 5 9 1
[169]

0.0 3. 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.0

- 50 200 350 303 25 41.3 89 0.73
30 3 0 4 2 5

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.0

- 200 350 303 25 39.8 84 0.70
0 30 3 5 9 2 1
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
bw ( h( d( ag ( f′c CSA Xu
RC as ental JSC ACI AAS
Source ρ mm mm mm mm (MP - et
A% /d Shear, E- 31 HTO
) ) ) ) a) A23 al.
Vc (kN) 19 8- LRFD
.3- [17
97 19 2012
14 7]

Ji et al. 10 0.0 2. 1.4 1.2 1.6 0.8

170 300 270 20 39.7 60 0.85
[179] 0 12 2 5 2 1 7

Fathifaz
63. 0.0 1. 3.6 2.8 4.0 1.9
l et al. 200 375 300 19 41.6 186.7 3.24
5 10 5 0 4 6 1
[170]

63. 0.0 2.8 2.5 3.6 1.8

- 200 375 300 19 41.6 2 169.5 2.21
5 16 5 8 9 2

63. 0.0 2. 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.2

- 200 375 309 19 41.6 103.9 1.09
5 14 7 7 3 1 3

63. 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.0

- 200 375 305 19 41.6 4 83.2 0.69
5 26 7 4 9 6

74. 0.0 1. 3.6 2.7 4.2 1.8

- 200 375 300 19 49.1 195.3 3.21
3 10 5 2 3 5 5

74. 0.0 2.9 2.5 3.8 1.7

- 200 375 300 19 49.1 2 179 2.21
3 16 0 0 9 7

74. 0.0 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.2

- 200 375 305 19 49.1 4 105.6 0.86
3 26 3 5 7 4

63. 0.0 2. 2.1 2.0 2.6 1.3

- 200 250 201 19 41.6 89.3 1.69
5 13 7 5 3 7 2

63. 0.0 2. 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.2

- 200 375 309 19 41.6 103.9 1.09
5 14 6 7 3 1 1

63. 0.0 2. 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.0

- 200 450 381 19 41.6 99.5 0.72
5 18 7 5 9 1 3
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
bw ( h( d( ag ( f′c CSA Xu
RC as ental JSC ACI AAS
Source ρ mm mm mm mm (MP - et
A% /d Shear, E- 31 HTO
) ) ) ) a) A23 al.
Vc (kN) 19 8- LRFD
.3- [17
97 19 2012
14 7]

63. 0.0 2. 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.9

- 200 550 476 19 41.6 104.6 0.58
5 17 7 2 0 3 8

74. 0.0 2. 2.4 2.5 3.6 1.5

- 200 250 201 19 49.1 122.6 2.03
3 20 7 8 6 7 9

74. 0.0 2. 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.0

- 200 450 381 19 49.1 111.7 0.77
3 18 7 6 3 4 7

74. 0.0 2. 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.0

- 200 550 476 19 49.1 119.6 0.64
3 17 7 4 5 7 3

Knaack
and 0.0 3. 1.4 1.3 1.7 0.9
50 150 230 200 19 41.8 44 0.92
Kurama 134 8 1 3 6 7
[171]

0.0 3. 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.8

- 50 150 230 200 19 41.8 39.1 0.78
134 8 5 9 7 6

0.0 3. 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.0

- 50 150 230 200 19 37.4 43.7 0.96
134 8 5 0 5 1

0.0 3. 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.9

- 50 150 230 200 19 37.4 41.2 0.89
134 8 7 2 5 6

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.8

- 150 230 200 19 39.1 36.4 0.74
0 134 8 9 4 6 3

10 0.0 3. 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.8

- 150 230 200 19 39.1 38 0.78
0 134 8 4 9 2 6

- 10 0.0 150 230 200 19 39.2 3. 39.9 1.3 1.2 0.83 1.6 0.9
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
bw ( h( d( ag ( f′c CSA Xu
RC as ental JSC ACI AAS
Source ρ mm mm mm mm (MP - et
A% /d Shear, E- 31 HTO
) ) ) ) a) A23 al.
Vc (kN) 19 8- LRFD
.3- [17
97 19 2012
14 7]

0 134 8 1 5 0 1

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.8

- 150 230 200 19 39.2 36.1 0.73
0 134 8 8 3 5 2

Arezou
mandi 10 0.0 3. 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9
305 460 400 25 30 114.8 0.61
et al. 0 125 1 3 1 0 6
[172]

10 0.0 3. 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1

- 305 460 375 25 30 143.2 0.78
0 199 25 8 4 5 8

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0

- 305 460 375 25 30 131.4 0.65
0 266 25 5 3 3 5

10 0.0 3. 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8

- 305 460 400 25 34.1 113 0.57
0 125 1 6 3 9 9

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.9

- 305 460 375 25 34.1 124.1 0.61
0 199 25 4 9 5 7

10 0.0 3. 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.0

- 305 460 375 25 34.1 140.3 0.66
0 266 25 8 4 2 7

Sadati
0.0 3. 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9
et al. 50 305 460 396 25 32 117.4 0.62
13 0 4 1 4 5
[178]

0.0 3. 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.2

- 50 305 460 375 25 32 151.2 0.81
20 2 2 7 3 1

- 50 0.0 305 460 375 25 32 3. 171.7 1.4 1.5 0.88 1.7 1.3
 Vexp/Vpred

Experim
bw ( h( d( ag ( f′c CSA Xu
RC as ental JSC ACI AAS
Source ρ mm mm mm mm (MP - et
A% /d Shear, E- 31 HTO
) ) ) ) a) A23 al.
Vc (kN) 19 8- LRFD
.3- [17
97 19 2012
14 7]

27 2 7 6 3 3

1.5 1.4 1.9 1.1

Mean - - - - - - - - - 1.03
8 5 0 1

0.6 0.5 0.8 0.2

SD - - - - - - - - - 0.65
3 0 3 9

40. 34. 62.5 43. 26.

COV% - - - - - - - - -
20 62 3 95 34

Open in a separate window

In reviewing the literature, no data was found on the shear behavior of

RC beams with GGBFS, SF, or MK as a cement component. On the other
hand, several studies have investigated the shear behavior of large-scale
RC beams while utilizing FA as a partially replacing material to the OPC,
as summarized in Table 2.

Before analyzing the prediction accuracy of each design model, the

various models in Table 1 will be qualitatively compared to highlight the
difference among them. It is worth noting that both models, the ACI 318-

reinforcement ratio (ρ) and the (asd) effects on concrete shear capacity.
19 [174] and the CSA-A23.3-14 [175], are not considering the

Similarly, in JSCE-1997 [176], the (asd) effect is not counted. In the

(ρ) and (asd) has been reported

literature, a strong relationship between the shear capacity and varying

[141,142,166,169,170,171,172,178,179,180,181,182]. Hence, the

exclusion of these variables is expected to result in inconsistent
predictions. On the other hand, AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173] and the
proposed equation by Xu et al. [177] have considered these effects. One
source of inaccuracy in Xu et al.’s [177] model could be that the proposed
equation predicts zero shear strength for concrete sections without
flexural reinforcement. However, this is not a major problem since
reinforcement exists in practical life applications.
As can be seen in Table 2, the replacement level of SCM with OPC is
ranging between 20% to 70%. The concrete shear strength models of
ACI 318-19 [174], CSA-A23.3-14 [175], and JSCE-1997 [176] have shown
very conservative predictions with average experimental to predicted
shear capacities (Vexp/Vpred) of 1.47 ± 0.42, 1.45 ± 0.38, and 1.51 ± 0.4,
respectively. The proposed model of Xu et al. [177] also reported
conservative predictions but with higher accuracy,
where Vexp/Vpred= 1.2 ± 0.22. In addition, Xu et al.’s [177] model
recorded the least coefficient of variation, COV% = 18.61, which indicates
better consistency compared to other models. On the contrary, AASHTO
LRFD-2012 [173] over-estimated the predictions with Vexp/Vpred= 0.95
± 0.41 and COV% of 42.78. However, for those beams with 20% to 30%
of FA, the AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173] has shown under-estimated
predictions.
From the data in Table 3, it is apparent that RCA% is ranging from 25%
to 100%. As the above observations, Xu et al.’s [177] model revealed the
most accurate predictions with Vexp/Vpred= 1.11 ± 0.29 and better
consistency than the rest of the codes, with COV% of 26.34. On the other
hand, AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173] demonstrated the least accurate
predictions with Vexp/Vpred= 1.03 ± 0.65 and COV% of 62.53. The
predictions of AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173] appeared to be conservative
for (asd) less than 2.7, whereas the predictions were over-estimated for
(asd) greater than 2.7. The results, as shown in Table 3, indicate that the
CSA-A23.3-14 [175] revealed the most conservative and high variability
in predictions, with Vexp/Vpred and COV% of 1.90 ± 0.83 and 43.95,
respectively. Furthermore, both the JSCE-1997 [176] and ACI 318-19
[174] predictions in Table 3 were found to be consistent with those
in Table 2, with Vexp/Vpred of 1.58 ± 0.63 and 1.45 ± 0.50, and COV% of
40.20 and 34.62, respectively. As expected, the high variability in
predictions accords well with our earlier qualitative comparison of the

important factors such as ρ and asd.

presented models in Table 1, which might be due to the exclusion of
 Go to:

4. Conclusions

In this review, the sustainability benefits of GC were discussed first, then

its mechanical properties when incorporating GGBFS, FA, SF, or MK as a
partially replacing material for cement were analyzed at different
replacement levels, different ages, and different W/b ratios in terms of
compressive strength. The durability properties of GC were discussed
under different environmental exposures. Following this, the structural
behavior of GC in large-scale RC beams was analyzed and their concrete
shear capacities were compared analytically to the available design
codes, such as JSCE-1997 [176], ACI 318- 2019 [174], AASHTO LRFD-
2012 [173], and CSA-A23.3-2014 [175], and a proposed equation by Xu
et al. [177]. Based on the above review, the main outcomes are
summarized as follow:

 The SF and MK were very effective in gaining higher early strength than
the control mix with 100% OPC.
 At 90 days, the GGBFS concrete reported higher compressive strength
than 40 MPa, except for concrete with 80% of GGBFS at W/b of 0.5.
 The analysis revealed that the 28-day strength of 20 to 35 MPa was
achieved when the W/b range of 0.5 to 0.6 or 0.24 to 0.45 is
implemented with a replacement level of FA of 10% to 30% or 40% to
60%, respectively.
 Higher strength grades (at 28 days) of the range 40 to 60 MPa and 60 to
80 MPa can be achieved when W/b ranges are 0.27 to 0.4 and 0.24 to
0.36 and when the replacement levels of FA are 10% to 55% and 10% to
40%, respectively.
 At the age of 28 days, high strength grades of the range 40 to 60 MPa and
60 to 90 MPa were achieved when W/b is of the range 0.35 to 0.5 and
0.26 to 0.4 and when the replacement ratio of SF is ranging from 5% to
20% and 5% to 25%, respectively.
 For concrete with MK, the 28-day strength of 60 to 80 MPa was achieved
at W/b of 0.3 to 0.36 and with a replacement level in the range of 10% to
 20%. At lower W/b of 0.27 to 0.33, the strength range of 80 to 100 MPa
was achieved at replacement levels of 5% to 15%, respectively.
 At elevated temperatures higher than 400 °C, the concrete mixes with
either GGBFS, FA, or SF demonstrated a sharp reduction in compressive
strength.
 The sorptivity in pozzolanic cement pastes is remarkably lower than that
in Portland cement paste.
 The long-term resistance to sulfate attack of concrete that combines
GGBFS and FA was observed to be superior to the CC mix and high-
volume FA concrete mix. Also, the former mix experienced less change in
weight.
 The carbonation depth was shown to increase with the increased content
of SCMs, and regardless of SCM type in concrete, the carbonation depth
was higher than that of the control mix (with no SCM).
 The incorporation of silica nanoparticles (SNPs) could result in a
significant reduction in the carbonation depth and the sulfate attack.
 Although the RCA concrete had a more permeable structure than the
NCA concrete, the incorporation of FA, GGBFS, or SF can lead to a
significant enhancement in the chloride ion penetration resistance.
 The concrete shear strength models of JSCE-1997 [176], ACI 318-19
[174], and CSA-A23.3-14 [175] have shown very conservative
predictions for concrete beams with FA or RCA, whereas predictions
were over-estimated by AASHTO LRFD-2012 [173].
 Among all models, the model of Xu et al. [177] revealed the most
accurate predictions with Vexp/Vpred= 1.2 ± 0.22 and 1.11 ± 0.29 for
beams with FA or RCA, respectively.

Continued efforts are needed to determine the stress-strain behavior of

GC to account for the required design considerations. In addition, further
research could also be conducted to determine the GC behavior in large-
scale specimens such as beams and slabs under shear and flexure, to
develop an understanding of how the combination of GC, bars, and
stirrups can create a system that is functional and safe. Another
important aspect of research that might produce striking findings is to
investigate the bond efficiency of GC with the conventional steel or with
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. On a wider level, there is a need for
a holistic, detailed, and accurate social, economic, and environmental
sustainability analysis of GC that considers all stages of GC product from
cradle to grave. Finally, we believe that our research will serve as a base
for analyzing other types of substitutes in GC, such as agricultural and
municipal wastes.

Go to:

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Qatar Foundation for their
financial support through the GSRA grant no. GSRA6-1-0301-19005 from
the Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF, a member of Qatar
Foundation).

Go to:

Abbreviations

CE Circular economy

PCC Portland cement concrete

C&D Construction and demolition

GC Green concrete
NCA Natural coarse aggregates

RCA Recycled coarse aggregates

OPC ordinary Portland cement

SCM Supplementary cementitious material

GGBFS Ground granulated blast furnace slag

FA Fly ash

SF Silica fume

MK Metakaolin

RHA Rice husk ash

LCA Life cycle assessment

CC Conventional concrete

EAF Electric arc furnace

GWP Global warming potential

C-S-H Calcium silicate hydrate

RC Reinforced concrete

GGFAC Concrete with a combination of GGBFS and FA

VA Volcanic ash

DS Drying shrinkage

SNPs Silica nanoparticles

HVFA High-volume FA

Go to:

Supplementary Materials

The following are available in an excel sheet online

at [Link] Table S1: GGBFS
concrete, Table S2: FA concrete, Table S3: SF concrete, Table S4: MK
concrete.

Click here for additional data file.(71K, xlsx)

Go to:

Author Contributions

Original draft preparation: A.A.-H.; Methodology A.A.-H., M.K. and W.A.;

Investigation A.A.-H.; Resources: A.A.-H. and M.K.; Formal analysis A.A.-H.
and M.K.; Visualization A.A.-H.; Supervision M.K. and W.A.; Review and
editing A.A.-H., M.K., W.A., E.M., and N.C.O. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Go to:

Funding

This research was funded by the Graduate Sponsorship Research Award

(GSRA) grant number GSRA6-1-0301-19005.
 Go to:

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Go to:

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Go to:

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material. The data

presented in this study are available in Al-Hamrani, A.; Kucukvar, M.;
Alnahhal, W.; Mahdi Saad, E.; Onat, N.C. Green Concrete for a Circular
Economy: A Review on Sustainability, Durability, and Structural
Properties.

Go to:

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Go to:
Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Go to:

References
1. Blomsma F., Brennan G. The Emergence of Circular Economy: A New Framing
Around Prolonging Resource Productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017;21:603–614.
doi: 10.1111/jiec.12603. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Deschamps J., Simon B., Tagnit-Hamou A., Amor B. Is open-loop recycling the
lowest preference in a circular economy? Answering through LCA of glass powder in
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;185:14–22.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.03.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

3. Khan A.A., Arshad S., Mohsin M. Population Growth and Its Impact on Urban
Expansion: A Case Study of Population Growth and Its Impact on Urban Expansion:
A Case Study of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Univers. J. Geosci. 2014;2:229–241.
doi: 10.13189/ujg.2014.020801. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Guney T. Population Growth and Sustainable Development in Developed-

Developing Countries: An Iv (2sls) Approach. J. Fac. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2017;22:1255–
1277. [Google Scholar]

5. Tafheem Z., Khusru S., Nasrin S. Environmental Impact of Green Concrete in

Practice ICMERE2011-PI-069; Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Mechanical Engineering and Renewable Energy (ICMERE); Chittagong, Bangladesh.
22–24 December 2011. [Google Scholar]

6. Marie I., Quiasrawi H. Closed-loop recycling of recycled concrete aggregates. J.

Clean. Prod. 2012;37:243–248.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.07.020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Sergeant G., Lerut E., Ectors N., Hendrickx T., Aerts R., Topal B. National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) Concrete CO 2 Fact Sheet. Eur. J. Surg.
Oncol. 2008 doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.10.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Mamlouk M.S., Zaniewski J.P. Materials for Civil and Construction
Engineers. Pearson Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: 2006. [Google
Scholar]

9. Andrew R.M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data
Discuss. 2017:195–217. doi: 10.5194/essd-10-195-2018. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

10. Ahmad S., Kumar A., Kumar K. Axial performance of GGBFS concrete filled steel
tubes. Structures. 2020;23:539–550.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.12.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Imbabi M.S., Carrigan C., McKenna S. Trends and developments in green cement
and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2012;1:194–216.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.05.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Karsan K.R., Hoseini A.G. Investigating the Effectiveness of Using Green Concrete
Towards Promotion of Sustainable Built. Univ. Putra Malays. 2015;8:49–59. [Google
Scholar]

13. Rashad A.M. An investigation of high-volume fl y ash concrete blended with slag
subjected to elevated temperatures. J. Clean. Prod. 2015;93:47–55.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.01.031. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Albitar M., Ali M.S.M., Visintin P., Drechsler M. Effect of granulated lead smelter
slag on strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015;83:128–135.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.03.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Baspinar M.S., Demir I. Utilization potential of silica fume in fired clay
bricks. Waste Manag. Res. 2010:149–157.
doi: 10.1177/0734242X09104385. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. FAO . FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistic
Division (FAOSTAT) Domains e Crops: Rice paddy, Production Quantity, World
Total. FAO; Roman, Italy: 2012. [Google Scholar]

17. Younis K.H., Pilakoutas K. Strength prediction model and methods for improving
recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013;49:688–701.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.09.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Akhtar A., Sarmah A.K. Construction and demolition waste generation and
properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. J. Clean.
Prod. 2018;186:262–281. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.03.085. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

19. Behera M., Bhattacharyya S.K., Minocha A.K., Deoliya R., Maiti S. Recycled
aggregate from C & D waste & its use in concrete–A breakthrough towards
sustainability in construction sector: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014;68:501–
516. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.07.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Mukharjee B.B., Barai S.V. Statistical techniques to analyze properties of nano-
engineered concrete using Recycled Coarse Aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2014;83:273–
285. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.07.045. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Tam V.W.Y., Soomro M., Catarina A., Evangelista J. A review of recycled aggregate
in concrete applications (2000–2017) Constr. Build. Mater. 2018;172:272–292.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.03.240. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Yehia S., Helal K., Abusharkh A., Zaher A., Istaitiyeh H. Strength and Durability
Evaluation of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2015
doi: 10.1007/s40069-015-0100-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Mukharjee B.B., Barai S.V. Influence of Nano-Silica on the properties of recycled
aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014;55:29–37.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.01.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Al-mansour A., Chow C.L., Feo L., Penna R., Lau D. Green Concrete: By-Products
Utilization and Advanced Approaches. Sustainability. 2019;11:5145.
doi: 10.3390/su11195145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Suhendro B. Toward green concrete for better sustainable

environment. Procedia Eng. 2014;95:305–320.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.12.190. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Müller H.S., Breiner R., Moffatt J.S., Haist M. Design and properties of sustainable
concrete. Procedia Eng. 2014;95:290–304.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.12.189. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Badogiannis E., Papadakis V.G., Chaniotakis E., Tsivilis S. Exploitation of poor
Greek kaolins: Strength development of metakaolin concrete and evaluation by
means of k -value. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004;34:1035–1041.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2003.11.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Roy D.M., Arjunan P., Silsbee M.R. Effect of silica fume, metakaolin, and low-
calcium fly ash on chemical resistance of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001;31:1809–
1813. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00548-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Ferraris C.F., Obla K.H., Hill R. The influence of mineral admixtures on the
rheology of cement paste and concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001;31:245–255.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00454-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Chan W.W.J., Wu C.M.L. Durability of concrete with high cement

replacement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000;30:865–879. doi: 10.1016/S0008-
8846(00)00253-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Long G., Gao Y., Xie Y. Designing more sustainable and greener self-compacting
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015;84:301–306.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.02.072. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Liew K.M., Sojobi A.O., Zhang L.W. Green concrete: Prospects and
challenges. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017;156:1063–1095.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.09.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Ghahari S.A., Assi L.N., Alsalman A., Alyamaç K.E. Fracture properties evaluation
of cellulose nanocrystals cement paste. Materials. 2020;13:2507.
doi: 10.3390/ma13112507. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Knoeri C., Sanyé-Mengual E., Althaus H.J. Comparative LCA of recycled and
conventional concrete for structural applications. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2013;18:909–918. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0544-2. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

35. Blengini G.A., Garbarino E. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy):
The role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J. Clean.
Prod. 2010;18:1021–1030. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.01.027. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

36. Leising E., Quist J., Bocken N. Circular Economy in the building sector: Three
cases and a collaboration tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;176:976–989.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.12.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Yazdanbakhsh A., Bank L.C., Baez T., Wernick I. Comparative LCA of concrete
with natural and recycled coarse aggregate in the New York City area. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2018:1163–1173. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1360-
5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Faleschini F., Pellegrino C. Recycled concrete containing EAF slag:

Environmental assessment through LCA. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2014
doi: 10.1080/19648189.2014.922505. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Abbas A., Fathifazl G., Isgor O.B., Razaqpur A.G., Fournier B., Foo S.
Environmental benefits of green concrete; Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE EIC Climate
Change Technology Conference, EICCCC 2006; Ottawa, ON, Canada. 10–12 May
2006. [Google Scholar]

40. Shan X., Zhou J., Chang V.W., Yang E. Life cycle assessment of adoption of local
recycled aggregates and green concrete in Singapore perspective. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017;164:918–926. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.07.015. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

41. Turk J., Cotic Z., Mladenovic A., Sajna A. Environmental evaluation of green
concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste
Manag. 2015;45:194–205. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.06.035. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Gursel A.P., Maryman H., Ostertag C. A life-cycle approach to environmental,

mechanical, and durability properties of “green” concrete mixes with rice husk
ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016;112:823–836.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.06.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Thomas B.S. Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a
supplementary cementitious material–A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018;82:3913–3923.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.10.081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Flower D.J.M., Sanjayan J.G. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007;12:282–288.
doi: 10.1065/lca2007.05.327. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Divsholi B.S., Yang T., Lim D., Teng S. Durability Properties and Microstructure of
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Cement Concrete. Int. J. Concr. Struct.
Mater. 2014;8:157–164. doi: 10.1007/s40069-013-0063-y. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

46. Yu J., Mishra D.K., Leung C.K.Y. Very high volume fly ash green concrete for
applications in India. Waste Manag. Res. 2018;36:520–526.
doi: 10.1177/0734242X18770241. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Elchalakani M., Aly T., Abu-Aisheh E. Sustainable concrete with high volume
GGBFS to build Masdar City in the UAE. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2014;1:10–24.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.11.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Song W., Yi J., Wu H., He X., Song Q., Yin J. Effect of carbon fi ber on mechanical
properties and dimensional stability of concrete incorporated with granulated-blast
furnace slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2019;238:117819.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.117819. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Sha W., Pereira G.B. Differential scanning calorimetry study of hydrated ground
granulated blast-furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001;31:327–329.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00472-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Oner A., Akyuz S. An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the
compressive strength of concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007;29:505–514.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.01.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. American Concrete Institute . Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a

Cementitious Constituent in Concrete. ACI 233R-95. American Concrete Institute;
Farmington Hills, MI, USA: 1995. pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]

52. Yun K., Kyum E. An experimental study on corrosion resistance of concrete with
ground granulate blast-furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005;35:1391–1399.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.11.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Khatib J.M., Hibbert J.J. Selected engineering properties of concrete incorporating
slag and metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater. 2005;19:460–472.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.07.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Patil Y.O., Patil P.P.N., Student P.G., Course M.E., Course P.G. GGBS as Partial
Replacement of OPC in Cement Concrete–An Experimental Study Engineering. Int. J.
Sci. Res. 2013;2:189–191. [Google Scholar]
55. Cheng A., Huang R., Wu J., Chen C. Influence of GGBS on durability and corrosion
behavior of reinforced concrete. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2005;93:404–411.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2005.03.043. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Ozbay E., Erdemir M., Ibrahim H. Utilization and efficiency of ground granulated
blast furnace slag on concrete properties–A review. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2016;105:423–434.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.12.153. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Guneyisi E., Gesoglu M. A study on durability properties of high-performance

concretes incorporating high replacement levels of slag. Mater. Struct. 2008;41:479–
493. doi: 10.1617/s11527-007-9260-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Zhang L., Chen B. Hydration and Properties of Slag Cement Activated by Alkali
and Sulfate. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017;29:1–8. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001879. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Acharya P.K., Patro S.K. Effect of lime and ferrochrome ash (FA) as partial
replacement of cement on strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity and permeability of
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015;94:448–457.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.07.081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Johari M.A.M., Brooks J.J., Kabir S., Rivard P. Influence of supplementary
cementitious materials on engineering properties of high strength concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2011;25:2639–2648.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.12.013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Khan A.N., Memon F.A., Rizvi S.H., Bhanbhro Q., Bheel N. Fresh and Hardened
Properties of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Made Concrete. Int. J. Mod. Res.
Eng. Manag. 2018;1:1–7. doi: 10.12989/acc.2016.4.4.283. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

62. Chen X., Wang H., Najm H., Venkiteela G., Hencken J. Evaluating engineering
properties and environmental impact of pervious concrete with fl y ash and slag. J.
Clean. Prod. 2019;237:117714.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.117714. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Bilim C., Atis C.D., Tanyildizi H., Karahan O. Advances in Engineering Software
Predicting the compressive strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag
concrete using artificial neural network. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2009;40:334–340.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2008.05.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Ozbay E., Lachemi M. Compressive strength, abrasion resistance and energy
absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and without slag. Mater.
Struct. 2011:1297–1307. doi: 10.1617/s11527-010-9701-x. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

65. Jang S., Karthick S., Kwon S. Investigation on Durability Performance in Early
Aged High-Performance Concrete Containing GGBFS and FA. Adv. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2017;2017 doi: 10.1155/2017/3214696. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Nath P., Sarker P. Effect of Fly Ash on the Durability Properties of High Strength
Concrete. Procedia Eng. 2011;14:1149–1156.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.07.144. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. American Coal Ash Association Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production &
Use Survey Report [Internet]. Farmington Hills. [(accessed on 9 October
2020)];2012 Available
online: [Link]

68. Naik T.R., Singh S.S., Hossain M.M., Fellow P., Science A. Permeability of concrete
containing large amounts of fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 1994;24:913–922.
doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(94)90011-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Lam L., Wong Y., Poon C. Effect of fly ash and silica fume on compressive and
fracture behaviors of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998;28:271–283.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00269-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Bouzoubaa N., Lachemi M. Self-compacting concrete incorporating high volumes

of class F fly ash Preliminary results. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001;31:413–420.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00504-4. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Atis C.D., Ash F. High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete with High Strength and Low
Drying Shrinkage. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2003;15:153–156. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2003)15:2(153). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. Han S., Kim J., Park Y. Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash concrete by
new apparent activation energy function. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003;33:965–971.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00007-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Siddique R. Performance characteristics of high-volume Class F fly ash
concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004;34:487–493.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2003.09.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

74. Dinakar P., Babu K.G., Santhanam M. Cement & Concrete Composites Durability
properties of high volume fly ash self compacting concretes. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2008;30:880–886.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2008.06.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

75. Durán-herrera A., Juárez C.A., Valdez P., Bentz D.P., Ash F. Evaluation of
sustainable high-volume fly ash concretes. Cem. Concr. Compos. J. 2011;33:39–45.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.09.020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. Çelik B., Özturan T. Green Concrete Produced by Fly Ash and Silica Fume. Int. J.
Eng. Sci. Appl. 2017;1:1–6. [Google Scholar]

77. Huang C., Lin S., Chang C., Chen H. Mix proportions and mechanical properties of
concrete containing very high-volume of Class F fly ash. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2013;46:71–78. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.04.016. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

78. Ahmaruzzaman M. A review on the utilization of fly ash. Prog. Energy Combust.
Sci. 2010;36:327–363. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.11.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

79. Poon C.S., Lam L., Wong Y.L. A study on high strength concrete prepared with
large volumes of low calcium fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000;30:447–455.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00271-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

80. Kayali O., Ahmed M.S. Assessment of high volume replacement fly ash concrete–
Concept of performance index. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013;39:71–76.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.05.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

81. Rivera F., Martínez P., Castro J., Mauricio L. Massive volume fl y-ash concrete: A
more sustainable material with fl y ash replacing cement and aggregates. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2015;63:104–112.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.08.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

82. Saha A.K. Effect of class F fl y ash on the durability properties of

concrete. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2018;28:25–31.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.09.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
83. Shekarchi M., Rafiee A., Layssi H. Long-term chloride diffusion in silica fume
concrete in harsh marine climates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009;31:769–775.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.08.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

84. Strzałkowski J., Garbalińska H. The Influence of Silica Fume on the Mechanical
and Thermal Parameters of Portland Cement Concretes. J. Ecol. Eng. 2019;20:95–
102. doi: 10.12911/22998993/112503. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

85. Hewlett P. Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete. 4th ed. Butterworth-
Heinemann; Brlington, VT, USA: 2003. pp. 907–1015. [Google Scholar]

86. Khedr S., Abou-Zeid M. Characteristics of silica-fume concrete. J. Mater. Civ.

Eng. 1995;6:357–375. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(1994)6:3(357). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

87. Mazloom M., Ramezanianpour A., Brooks J.J. Effect of silica fume on mechanical
properties of high-strength concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2004;26:347–357.
doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(03)00017-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

88. Wong H.S., Razak H.A. Efficiency of calcined kaolin and silica fume as cement
replacement material for strength performance. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005;35:696–702.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.05.051. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

89. Behnood A., Ziari H. Effects of silica fume addition and water to cement ratio on
the properties of high-strength concrete after exposure to high temperatures. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 2008;30:106–112.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.06.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

90. Amudhavalli N.K., Mathew J. Effect of silica fume on strength and durability
parameters of concrete. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2012;3:28–35. [Google
Scholar]

91. Ding J., Li Z. Effects of Metakaolin and Silica Fume on Properties of Concrete. ACI
Mater. J. 2018;99:393–398. [Google Scholar]

92. Bhanja S., Sengupta B. Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of
concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005;35:743–747.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.05.024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
93. Nochaiya T., Wongkeo W., Chaipanich A. Utilization of fly ash with silica fume
and properties of Portland cement–fly ash–silica fume concrete. Fuel. 2010;89:768–
774. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.10.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

94. Kou S., Poon C., Agrela F. Cement & Concrete Composites Comparisons of natural
and recycled aggregate concretes prepared with the addition of different mineral
admixtures. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011;33:788–795.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.05.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

95. Corinaldesi V., Moriconi G. Influence of mineral additions on the performance of

100 % recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009;23:2869–2876.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.02.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

96. Emhemd A., Al S., Radonjanin V., Malešev M. Green recycled aggregate
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013;47:1503–1511.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.06.076. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

97. Blanco F., Garcia M.P., Ayala J., Mayoral G., Garcia M.A. The effect of mechanically
and chemically activated fly ashes on mortar properties. Fuel. 2006;85:2018–2026.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2006.03.031. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

98. Poon C.S., Kou S.C., Lam L. Compressive strength, chloride diffusivity and pore
structure of high performance metakaolin and silica fume concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2006;20:858–865.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2005.07.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

99. Özcan F., Atiş C.D., Karahan O., Uncuoǧlu E., Tanyildizi H. Comparison of artificial
neural network and fuzzy logic models for prediction of long-term compressive
strength of silica fume concrete. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2009;40:856–863.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.01.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

100. Patil B.B., Kumbhar P.D. Strength and Durability Properties of High
Performance Concrete incorporating High Reactivity Metakaolin. Int. J. Mod. Eng.
Res. 2012;2:1099–1104. [Google Scholar]

101. Zhang M., Malhotra V. Characteritics of a thermally activated alumina-silicate

pozzolanic material and its use in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1995;25:1713–1725.
doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(95)00167-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
102. Vu D.D., Stroeven P., Bui V.B. Strength and durability aspects of calcined kaolin-
blended Portland cement mortar and concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2001;23:471–
478. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00091-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

103. Kadri E., Kenai S., Ezziane K., Siddique R., Schutter G. De Applied Clay Science In
fl uence of metakaolin and silica fume on the heat of hydration and compressive
strength development of mortar. Appl. Clay Sci. 2011;53:704–708.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.06.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

104. Rovnaníková P., Vejmelková E., Pavlíková M., Keppert M., Sedlmajer M., Robert
C., Ondrác M. High performance concrete with Czech metakaolin: Experimental
analysis of strength, toughness and durability characteristics. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2010;24:1404–1411.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.01.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

105. Batis G., Pantazopoulou P., Tsivilis S., Badogiannis E. The effect of metakaolin
on the corrosion behavior of cement mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005;27:125–
130. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.02.041. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

106. Barbhuiya S., Chow P., Memon S. Microstructure, hydration and

nanomechanical properties of concrete containing metakaolin. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015;95:696–702.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.07.101. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

107. Dinakar P., Sahoo P.K., Sriram G. Effect of Metakaolin Content on the Properties
of High Strength Concrete. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2013;7:215–223.
doi: 10.1007/s40069-013-0045-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

108. Ramezanianpour A.A., Jovein H.B. Influence of metakaolin as supplementary

cementing material on strength and durability of concretes. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2012;30:470–479.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.12.050. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

109. Qian X., Li Z. The relationships between stress and strain for high-performance
concrete with metakaolin. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001;31:1607–1611.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00612-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

110. Lee S.T., Moon H.Y., Hooton R.D., Kim J.P. Effect of solution concentrations and
replacement levels of metakaolin on the resistance of mortars exposed to
magnesium sulfate solutions. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005;35:1314–1323.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.10.035. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

111. Cassagnabère F., Escadeillas G., Mouret M. Study of the reactivity of cement /
metakaolin binders at early age for specific use in steam cured precast
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009;23:775–784.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2008.02.022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

112. Wild S., Khatib J.M., Jones A. Relative strength, pozzolanic activity and cement
hydration in superplasticised metakaolin concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1996;26:1537–
1544. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(96)00148-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

113. Rashad A.M., Sadek D.M. An investigation on Portland cement replaced by high-
volume GGBS pastes modified with micro-sized metakaolin subjected to elevated
temperatures. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017;6:91–101.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.10.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

114. Poon C.S., Azhar S., Anson M., Wong Y.L. Performance of metakaolin concrete at
elevated temperatures. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003;25:83–89. doi: 10.1016/S0958-
9465(01)00061-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

115. Phan L.T., Carino N.J. Fire performance of high strength concrete: Research
needs. Adv. Technol. Struct. Eng. 2000:1–8. [Google Scholar]

116. Siddique R., Kaur D. Properties of concrete containing ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBFS) at elevated temperatures. J. Adv. Res. 2012;3:45–51.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.03.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

117. Li Q., Li Z., Yuan G. Effects of elevated temperatures on properties of concrete

containing ground granulated blast furnace slag as cementitious material. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2012;35:687–692.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.04.103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

118. Nadeem A., Memon S.A., Lo T.Y. The performance of Fly ash and Metakaolin
concrete at elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014;62:67–76.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.02.073. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

119. Li G., Zhao X. Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and ground
granulated blast-furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003;25:293–299.
doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00058-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
120. McCarthy M.J., Dhir R.K. Development of high volume fly ash cements for use in
concrete construction. Fuel. 2005;84:1423–1432.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.08.029. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

121. British Standard Institution . BS 1881 (part 208) Recommendations for the
Determination of Initial Surface Absorption of Concrete. British Standard Institution;
London, UK: 1996. [Google Scholar]

122. Hossain K.M.A., Lachemi M. Strength, durability and micro-structural aspects of

high performance volcanic ash concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007;37:759–766.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.02.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

123. ASTM C1202. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability
to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. ASTM International; West Conshohocken, PA, USA:
2012. pp. 1–8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

124. Kim H.S., Lee S.H., Moon H.Y. Strength properties and durability aspects of high
strength concrete using Korean metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007;21:1229–
1237. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2006.05.007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

125. ASTM C666/C666M. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid
Freezing and Thawing. Volume 3. ASTM International; West Conshohocken, PA, USA:
2003. pp. 1–6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

126. Hossain K.M.A., Lachemi M. Development of volcanic ash concrete: Strength,

durability, and microstructural investigations. ACI Mater. J. 2006;103:11–17.
doi: 10.14359/15122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

127. Berndt M.L. Properties of sustainable concrete containing fly ash, slag and
recycled concrete aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009;23:2606–2613.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2009.02.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

128. Kou S.C., Poon C.S. Long-term mechanical and durability properties of recycled
aggregate concrete prepared with the incorporation of fly ash. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2013;37:12–19.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.12.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

129. Faella C., Lima C., Martinelli E., Pepe M., Realfonzo R. Mechanical and durability
performance of sustainable structural concretes: An experimental study. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2016;71:85–96.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.05.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
130. Sabet F.A., Libre N.A., Shekarchi M. Mechanical and durability properties of self
consolidating high performance concrete incorporating natural zeolite, silica fume
and fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013;44:175–184.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.02.069. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

131. Chousidis N., Rakanta E., Ioannou I., Batis G. Mechanical properties and
durability performance of reinforced concrete containing fly ash. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015;101:810–817.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.10.127. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

132. Singh L.P., Ali D., Tyagi I., Sharma U., Singh R., Hou P. Durability studies of nano-
engineered fly ash concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019;194:205–215.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.11.022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

133. ASTM C1012/C1012M-15 Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-
Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution. Volume 11. ASTM Int.; West
Conshohocken, PA, USA: 2015. pp. 5–9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

134. CPC-18 Measurement of hardened concrete carbonation depth. Mater.

Struct. 1988;21:453–455. doi: 10.1007/BF02472327. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

135. Wang D., Zhou X., Meng Y., Chen Z. Durability of concrete containing fly ash and
silica fume against combined freezing-thawing and sulfate attack. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2017;147:398–406.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.04.172. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

136. Uysal M., Akyuncu V. Durability performance of concrete incorporating Class F

and Class C fly ashes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012;34:170–178.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.02.075. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

137. Yoo S.W., Ryu G.S., Choo J.F. Evaluation of the effects of high-volume fly ash on
the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015;93:1132–1144.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.05.021. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

138. Fuzail Hashmi A., Shariq M., Baqi A. Flexural performance of high volume fly
ash reinforced concrete beams and slabs. Structures. 2020;25:868–880.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.03.071. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
139. Sangeetha S.P., Joanna P.S. Open Access Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Partial Replacement of GGBS. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2014;3:119–
127. [Google Scholar]

140. Arezoumandi M., Volz J.S. Effect of fly ash replacement level on the shear
strength of high-volume fly ash concrete beams. J. Clean. Prod. 2013;59:120–130.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.06.043. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

141. Sunayana S., Barai S.V. Shear behavior of fly-ash-incorporated recycled

aggregate concrete beams. ACI Struct. J. 2020;117:289–303.
doi: 10.14359/51720200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

142. Alghazali H.H., Myers J.J. Shear behavior of full-scale high volume fly ash-self
consolidating concrete (HVFA-SCC) beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017;157:161–171.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.09.061. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

143. Bertolini L. Steel corrosion and service life of reinforced concrete

structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2008;4:123–137.
doi: 10.1080/15732470601155490. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

144. Topçu I.B., Boĝa A.R. Effect of ground granulate blast-furnace slag on corrosion
performance of steel embedded in concrete. Mater. Des. 2010;31:3358–3365.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.01.057. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

145. 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. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2005.11.002. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

146. Chidiac S.E., Panesar D.K. Evolution of mechanical properties of concrete

containing ground granulated blast furnace slag and effects on the scaling resistance
test at 28 days. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008;30:63–71.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.09.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

147. Chen Z., Yang Y., Yao Y. Quasi-static and dynamic compressive mechanical
properties of engineered cementitious composite incorporating ground granulated
blast furnace slag. Mater. Des. 2013;44:500–508.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.08.037. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
148. Dinakar P., Sethy K.P., Sahoo U.C. Design of self-compacting concrete with
ground granulated blast furnace slag. Mater. Des. 2013;43:161–169.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.06.049. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

149. Tsai C.J., Huang R., Lin W.T., Wang H.N. Mechanical and cementitious
characteristics of ground granulated blast furnace slag and basic oxygen furnace
slag blended mortar. Mater. Des. 2014;60:267–273.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.04.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

150. Indian Standard . IS 456 2000: Plain and Reinforced Concrete. Code of Practice
(4th Revision) Indian Standard; Mirzapur, India: 2000. [Google Scholar]

151. Hawileh R.A., Abdalla J.A., Fardmanesh F., Shahsana P., Khalili A. Performance of
reinforced concrete beams cast with different percentages of GGBS replacement to
cement. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2017;17:511–519.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.11.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

152. Rao P., Mohan S., Sekar S. Shear resistance of high volume fly ash reinforced
concrete beams without web reinforcement. Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 2013;1:986–
993. [Google Scholar]

153. Arezoumandi M., Volz J.S., Myers J.J. Shear behavior of high-volume fly ash
concrete versus conventional concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013;25:1506–1513.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000700. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

154. Li X. Recycling and reuse of waste concrete in China: Part II. Structural
behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete and engineering applications. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2009;53:107–112.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2008.11.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

155. Hoffmann C., Schubert S., Leemann A., Motavalli M. Recycled concrete and
mixed rubble as aggregates: Influence of variations in composition on the concrete
properties and their use as structural material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012;35:701–
709. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.10.007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

156. Ryu J.S. Improvement on strength and impermeability of recycled concrete. J.

Mater. Sci. Lett. 2002;21:1565–1567.
doi: 10.1023/A:1020349011716. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

157. Savaş E., Dawson A.R., Howard T.N. Influence of the micro- and nanoscale local
mechanical properties of the interfacial transition zone on impact behavior of
concrete made with different aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012;42:447–458. [Google
Scholar]

158. Tokyay M., Tahir C. Assessing the ITZ microcracking via scanning electron
microscope and its effect on the failure behavior of concrete. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2005;35:358–363. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.05.042. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]

159. Bao J., Li S., Zhang P., Ding X., Xue S., Cui Y., Zhao T. Influence of the
incorporation of recycled coarse aggregate on water absorption and chloride
penetration into concrete (a) NCAs (b) RCAs. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020;239:117845.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.117845. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

160. Poon C.S., Shui Z.H., Lam L. Effect of microstructure of ITZ on compressive
strength of concrete prepared with recycled aggregates. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2004;18:461–468.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2004.03.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

161. Younis K.H. Feasibility of Using Nanoparticles of SiO2 to Improve the

Performance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018;2018:3–5.
doi: 10.1155/2018/1512830. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

162. Li W., Xiao J., Sun Z., Kawashima S., Shah S.P. Interfacial transition zones in
recycled aggregate concrete with different mixing approaches. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2012;35:1045–1055.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2012.06.022. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

163. Otsuki N., Asce M., Miyazato S., Yodsudjai W. Influence of Recycled Aggregate on
Interfacial Transition Zone, Strength, Chloride Penetration and Carbonation of
Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2003;15:443–451. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2003)15:5(443). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

164. Bai G., Zhu C., Liu C., Liu B. An evaluation of the recycled aggregate
characteristics and the recycled aggregate concrete mechanical properties. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2020;240:117978.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.117978. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

165. Katz A. Treatments for the Improvement of Recycled Aggregate. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2004;16:597–603. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-
1561(2004)16:6(597). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
166. Han B., Yun H., Chung S. Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams Made
with Recycled Aggregate. ACI Symp. Publ. 2001;200:503–516. [Google Scholar]

167. Al mahmoud F., Boissiere R., Mercier C., Khelil A. Shear behavior of reinforced
concrete beams made from recycled coarse and fine
aggregates. Structures. 2020;25:660–669.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.03.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

168. González-Fonteboa B., Martínez-Abella F. Shear strength of recycled concrete

beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007;21:887–893.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2005.12.018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

169. Etxeberria M., Marí A.R., Vázquez E. Recycled aggregate concrete as structural
material. Mater. Struct. Constr. 2007;40:529–541. doi: 10.1617/s11527-006-9161-
5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

170. Fathifazl G., Razaqpur A.G., Burkan Isgor O., Abbas A., Fournier B., Foo S. Shear
capacity evaluation of steel reinforced recycled concrete (RRC) beams. Eng.
Struct. 2011;33:1025–1033.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2010.12.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

171. Knaack A.M., Kurama Y.C. Behavior of reinforced concrete beams with recycled
concrete coarse aggregates. J. Struct. Eng. 2015;141 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001118. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

172. Arezoumandi M., Smith A., Volz J.S., Khayat K.H. An experimental study on shear
strength of reinforced concrete beams with 100% recycled concrete
aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014;53:612–620.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2013.12.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

173. AASHTO LRFD . American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials. Bridge Design Specifications. 2nd ed. AASHTO LRFD; Washington, DC, USA:
2012. [Google Scholar]

174. American Concrete Institute ACI Committee . Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete ACI 318-19 and Commentary 318R–19. American Concrete
Institute ACI Committee; Farmington Hills, MI, USA: 2019. [Google Scholar]

175. CSA Group . Design of Concrete Structures (CSA A23. 3-14) Canadian Standards
Association; Toronto, ON, Canada: 2014. [Google Scholar]
176. JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers) Recommendation for Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing
Materials. JSCE; Tokyo, Japan: 1997. [Google Scholar]

177. Xu S., Zhang X., Reinhardt H.W. Shear capacity prediction of reinforced concrete
beams without stirrups using fracture mechanics approach. ACI Struct.
J. 2012;109:705–713. doi: 10.14359/51684048. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

178. Sadati S., Arezoumandi M., Khayat K.H., Volz J.S. Shear performance of
reinforced concrete beams incorporating recycled concrete aggregate and high-
volume fly ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016;115:284–293.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.12.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

179. Ji S.K., Lee W.S., Do Yun H. Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams with
Recycled Aggregates. Taylor & Francis Group; London, UK: 2008. [Google Scholar]

180. Arezoumandi M., Volz J., Myers J. Effect of high-volume fly ash on shear strength
of concrete beams. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013:1–9. doi: 10.3141/2342-
01. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

181. Arezoumandi M., Volz J.S., Ortega C.A., Myers J.J. Shear behavior of high-volume
fly ash concrete versus conventional concrete: Experimental study. J. Struct.
Eng. 2015;141:1–11. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0001003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

182. Lisantono A., Wigroho H.Y., Purba R.A. Shear Behavior of High-volume Fly Ash
Concrete as Replacement of Portland Cement in RC Beam. Procedia
Eng. 2017;171:80–87. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.01.312. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]