Utilization of By-Products and Wastes As Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Structural Mortar For Sustainable Construction

sustainability
Review
Utilization of By-Products and Wastes as
Supplementary Cementitious Materials in
Structural Mortar for Sustainable Construction
Shamir Sakir 1 , Sudharshan N. Raman 1,2 , Md. Safiuddin 3,4,5, *, A. B. M. Amrul Kaish 1
and Azrul A. Mutalib 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; [email protected] (S.S.);
[email protected] (S.N.R.); [email protected] (A.B.M.A.K.); [email protected] (A.A.M.)
2 Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
3 Angelo DelZotto School of Construction Management, George Brown College, 146 Kendal Avenue,
Toronto, ON M5T 2T9, Canada
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science, Ryerson University,
350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
5 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Windsor,
401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-416-415-5000 x6692

Received: 4 February 2020; Accepted: 20 April 2020; Published: 9 May 2020
Abstract: Rapid growth in industrial development has raised the concern of proper disposal of the
by-products generated in industries. Many of them may cause serious pollution to the air, land, and
water if dumped in open landfills. Agricultural and municipal wastes also cause environmental
issues if not managed properly. Besides, minimizing the carbon footprint has become a priority in
every industry to slow down global warming and climate change effects. The use of supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs) obtained from agricultural, industrial, municipal, and natural sources
can decrease a significant amount of fossil fuel burning by reducing cement production and contribute
to proper waste management. Also, SCMs can enhance desirable material properties like flowability,
strength, and durability. Such materials may play a big role to meet the need of modern time for
resilient construction. The effective application of SCMs in cement-based materials requires a clear
understanding of their physical and chemical characteristics. Researchers studied how the flowability,
strength, and durability properties of structural mortar change with the replacement of cement
with different SCMs. Various experiments were conducted to examine the behavior of structural
mortar in extreme conditions (e.g., high temperature). Many scholars have attempted to improve
its performance with various treatment techniques. This article is an attempt to bring all the major
findings of the recent relevant studies together, identify research gaps in the current state of knowledge
on the utilization of SCMs in structural mortar, and give several recommendations for further study.
The available results from recent studies have been reviewed, analyzed, and summarized in this
article. A collection of the updated experimental findings will encourage and ease the use of various
by-products and wastes as SCMs in structural mortar for sustainable construction.
Keywords: by-product; cement; structural mortar; supplementary cementitious material (SCM);

sustainability; waste
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3888; doi:10.3390/su12093888 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3888 2 of 35
1. Introduction
Every second, a rain forest with the size of 19 tennis courts vanishes, 1600 tons of ice melt in
Greenland, a desert area of 78 m2 expands in China, and 720 tons of CO2 are emitted by fossil fuel
combustion [1]. This is how industrial development affects Mother Nature. The cement production
industry is one of the prominent industries of the world. The history of cement-based materials is as
old as human civilization. The development of modern hydraulic cement began at the beginning of the
industrial revolution to meet the requirements of stronger and more durable cementitious products,
which can survive in wet and salty conditions. The cement production has hiked up at an increasing
rate in the last century. In 2015, the global production of cement was 3 billion tons, which had a 6.3%
annual growth rate [2,3]. The production of each metric ton of Portland cement requires about 4–5 GJ
of energy [4,5]. Around 60–130 kg of fuel oil or its equivalent and about 110 KW-h of electricity are
required to produce one metric ton of cement, depending on the cement type and the processes used [6].
Approximately, 800–1000 kg of CO2 emissions occur during the production of each ton of cement [3,7,8].
About 5%–8% of the global man-made emissions of CO2 is caused by cement production [3,5,8–10]. To
reduce the risk and impact of global warming and climate change, the “Paris Agreement” was signed
in 2016. In this agreement, 152 parties (collectively responsible for 84.64% of the global emissions
of greenhouse gases) have agreed to pursue limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 ◦ C above the
preindustrial levels [11,12]. The utilization of cementitious and/or pozzolanic by-products and wastes
as partial cement replacement materials can be helpful in this perspective. Within the context of this
paper, if a secondary outcome of a process has some market value, it is referred to as “by-product”.
If it does not have any market value and is usually disposed of, it is considered as “waste”.
Many industrial processes generate a huge quantity of by-products. Agricultural and municipal
operations also generate a vast quantity of wastes. The proper disposal of these materials is a big
concern. As these materials possess cementitious and/or pozzolanic properties, they can be used as a
partial replacement of cement in cementitious composites, thus decreasing the high production cost
and environmental pollution associated with cement factories. Such supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) can save a significant amount of cement and give specific properties to cementitious
products that help to meet the requirements of modern construction.
Different SCMs have various chemical and physical properties; thus, they produce different impacts
on cement-based materials. Moreover, the generation of a specific SCM depends on a specific industrial,
agricultural, or municipal process. Therefore, various SCMs are available in different parts of the
world. Besides, the desired properties of cement-based materials mostly depend on the socio-economic
and environmental conditions. Some societies are focused on new buildings, while some others are
focused on retrofitting. In some cases, the performance is the highest priority while controlling cost is
the highest priority in some other cases. Coastal, polar, and desert areas need cementitious products of
special properties for their structures. For these limiting conditions, it is difficult to find an appropriate
SCM for a specific purpose and optimize its quantity for cement-based materials.
In the present study, the research question was, “how can we utilize SCMs obtained from
industrial, agricultural, municipal, and natural sources to reduce the carbon footprint of the
construction industry?” To find the answer, scholarly articles were searched through Web of Science,
Google Scholar, and Science Direct databases. During the search, the following keywords were
used: “SCM”, “supplementary cementitious materials”, “cement replacement”, “mortar”, “fly ash”,
“silica fume”, “ground granulated blast-furnace slag”, “palm oil fuel ash”, “rice husk ash”, “bottom ash”,
“volcanic ash”, “limestone powder”, “metakaolin”, “glass powder”, and their different combinations.
From the search outcomes, only the recent experimental results on cement mortar were emphasized.
The fiber-reinforced mortar was excluded from this study because of its different working mechanism
and characteristics.
The use of more SCMs as a partial replacement of cement will decrease the cost of cementitious
products, reduce the environmental pollution, and consume the agricultural and industrial by-products
or wastes; thus, it will contribute to significant progress towards sustainable construction. The objective
of the present study is to summarize the effects of the major SCMs on the key properties of structural
mortar so that the experts can easily decide a suitable amount for their purpose.
2. Structural Mortar
Mortar is defined as “a mixture of finely divided hydraulic cementitious material, fine aggregate,
and water” [13]. Papayianni et al. [14] have classified mortar in three basic types:
• floor covering mortar,

• rendering mortar, and
• structural mortar.
In the case of floor covering and rendering mortars, strength is not a major concern. In certain
applications, mortar has a load-bearing role. When a mortar is expected to resist some external forces
and provide strength, it is referred to as “structural mortar”.
The strength-oriented application of mortar is rising day by day. The structural mortar is being
used as:
• binding material in masonry work,

• concrete repair material,
• matrix of thin reinforced cementitious products or composite systems (e.g., ferrocement,
fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM), textile-reinforced mortar (TRM), etc.),
• concrete equivalent mortar in scientific studies, and
• ultra-high performance concrete.
Versatile applications of structural mortar require different fresh and hardened properties.
In masonry work, the mortar should be adequately workable to allow proper placement of masonry
units above it. Usually, a mortar strength lower than the masonry unit is recommended so that cracks
would occur at the joints [15]. Unlike masonry work, concrete repair and thin reinforced cementitious
products need higher flowability to ensure proper placement in narrow and/or congested spaces. The
mortar strength directly influences the performance of the whole structure in such cases. Usually,
a higher strength is desirable.
The strength requirements of structural mortar for different applications are given in Table 1. To
achieve the desirable properties and find a suitable mixture design for structural mortar, SCMs can be
very effective tools. The use of appropriate SCMs at a proper ratio can enhance both the fresh and
hardened properties of structural mortar, resulting in cost-effective construction and better performance.
Table 1. Strength requirements of structural mortar.
Purpose Minimum Strength at 28 Days (MPa) Reference

Masonry work (ASTM Type M) 17.2 [15]
Structural repair (EN Class R3) 25.0 [16]
Concrete repair 27.6 [17]
Thin reinforced cementitious products 35.0 [18]
Structural repair (EN Class R4) 45.0 [16]
3. Major SCMs
The major SCMs obtained from different sources are briefly described in the following subsections.
The chemical compositions and key physical properties of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and
different SCMs are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Chemical compositions of common SCMs and OPC.
Chemical
Composition FA 1 BA 1 SF 1 GGBS 1 LP 1 MK 1 VA 1 POFA 1 RHA 1 WGP 1 OPC 2
(wt.%)
SiO2 36–65 44–59 85–99 28–41 0–8 49–69 45–65 47–69 17–94 56–81 16–23
CaO 1–19 1–17 0–4 37–50 45–55 0–2 3–11 4–12 0–2 5–11 49–69
Al2 O3 17–29 5–32 0–6 5–14 0–3 25–44 11–18 1–9 0–3 0–6 4–7
Fe2 O3 4–31 2–9 0–3 0–1 0–2 0–3 1–13 1–10 0–2 0–1 2–7
MgO 0–7 1–3 0–5 4–10 0–7 0–3 1–9 2–6 0–1 0–4 0–5
SO3 0–3 0–2 0–2 0–3 0–1 0–1 0–1 0–3 0–1 0–1 0–1
Na2 O 0–2 0–1 0–2 0–3 0–1 0–1 3–4 0–1 0–1 7–16 0–1
K2 O 0–3 1–8 0–2 0–2 0–1 0–2 1–6 5–11 0–5 0–1 0–1
P2 O 5 0–2 0–1 0–1 – – 0–1 0–1 3–5 – – –
TiO2 0–2 0–3 – 0–1 – 0–1 0–3 – – – –
LOI 0–5 1–13 0–6 1–2 36–45 0–4 1–6 1–21 0–6 0–12 –
Sp. gravity 2.26 2.64 2.24 2.88 2.72 2.51 2.66 2.42 2.16 2.50 3.15
Ref. [19–30] [31–38] [20,23,39–47] [7,48–54] [41,46,55–62] [43,58,63–67] [60,62,68–71] [38,72–77] [78–83] [84–88] [20,40,50,51,55,72,89,90]
1 FA = Fly Ash; SF = Silica Fume; GGBS = Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag; WGP = Waste Glass Powder; LP = Limestone Powder; MK = Metakaolin; POFA = Palm Oil Fuel Ash;
RHA = Rice Husk Ash; BA = Bottom Ash; VA = Volcanic Ash. 2 Ordinary Portland cement complying with EN 197-1 (Cement Type I-42.5 R).
3.1. SCMs from Industrial Processes
3.1.1. Fly Ash

Fly ash (FA), also known as “pulverized fuel ash”, is a secondary product of coal combustion [91].
Coal-based thermal power plants generate the greatest amount of FA. China, India, and the USA
collectively generate more than 75% of global production. In 2008, the global production of FA was
777 million tons [92]. China produces about 600 million tons of FA every year, with a utilization rate of
less than 70% [38]. The annual production in the USA is 52 million short tons, whereas the utilization
rate is only 44.5% [93]. The main ingredients of FA are SiO2 , Al2 O3 , Fe2 O3 , and CaO (Table 2). It also
contains heavy metals. The presence of heavy metals in FA depends on its source [94]. Coal FA exhibits
negligible ecotoxicity, though it contains traceable amounts of As, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn. That is why coal
FA is not considered a hazardous waste according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 USC 6901-6991, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On the other hand,
municipal waste FA is a hazardous waste because of its contents of Pb, Zn, dioxins, and furans that
are carcinogenic to humans. The removal or stabilization of these heavy metals is essential prior to
the utilization of municipal waste FA [95]. In most of the studies, FA improved the flow properties of
mortar because of its spherical particles. The SiO2 content of FA contributes to the pozzolanic reaction
in mortar. Having a much lower specific gravity than OPC, FA increases the volume of mortar mixture
if replaced by weight-to-weight (w/w) basis. FA also showed its potential as a solid sorbent for CO2
capture [96].
3.1.2. Bottom Ash

Bottom ash (BA) is a by-product generated from the burning of coal, biomass, or solid wastes.
Unlike FA, BA (from coal and biomass) consists of heavier particles and more heavy metals that
deposit at the bottom of the furnace [34,97]. The leaching behavior of BA has been a concern. Many
studies found alarming levels of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, Ni, Sr, etc.) leaching from BA. Usually,
the acidic pH and the presence of liquid increase the extent of leaching [34,98]. The USA and the EU
together produced about 18 million tons of coal BA annually in the last decade [37]. Spain produces
43,200 tons of biomass BA in its power plants per year [33]. The global production of coal BA was
about 134 million tons in 2011. For municipal waste BA, the global production was 440 million tons in
2016 [95]. The utilization rate of BA is very low compared to other wastes. For coal BA, it is only 33% in
the USA, compared to 55% for FA [32]. The remaining part is used in landfilling as a common disposal
practice. BA may cause many issues, namely, respiratory diseases when it gets airborne by winds and
groundwater contamination by leaching of heavy metals [99]. The main constituent minerals of BA
are SiO2 , Al2 O3 , and CaO (Table 2). The influence of BA on mortar properties depends on its origin
(coal, biomass, municipal waste, etc.), particle size, and treatment process.
3.1.3. Silica Fume

Silica fume (SF) is a by-product of the production of silicon and ferrosilicon alloys in electric arc
furnaces through the carbothermic reduction of quartz. In recent times, the estimated global production
of SF is 1.5 Mt per year [100]. SF mostly consists of SiO2 (Table 2). This high silica content ensures very
good pozzolanic reaction. Almost every study showed an improved strength for the substitution of
OPC by SF. Owing to its small particle size, the mortar flowability is often reduced by SF [101]. Like FA,
the mortar volume increases by the w/w replacement of OPC by SF for its low specific gravity (Table 2).
3.1.4. Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag

Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-product of steel and/or iron production
process [102]. In 2014, 7.2 million tons of blast-furnace slag was produced only in the USA; the domestic
sale of granulated blast furnace slag was about $175 million in the USA in that year [103]. China
produces about 220 million tons of blast-furnace slag annually [104]. The global production of GGBS is
about 300–360 million tons per year [105]. The most dominant minerals in GGBS are CaO and SiO2 ,
followed by MgO and Al2 O3 (Table 2). GGBS allows a relatively high replacement level of cement
without compromising the strength of mortar due to its self-cementing properties [53].
3.1.5. Limestone Powder

Limestone is a widely used natural mineral. Most of the concrete aggregates come from the
crushing of limestone. This process generates fines called limestone powder (LP) that cannot be used
as aggregate to produce concrete. About 20% of the limestone production is such powder, which is
considered a by-product from the production of aggregate for concrete [41]. In 2014, 829 million metric
tons of limestone aggregate were used only in the USA [106]. Unlike the other SCMs discussed in
this article, LP contains only a small amount of SiO2 , but it is rich in CaO (Table 2). Usually, its loss
on ignition (LOI) is much higher than that of the other SCMs. Lacking SiO2 , LP does not react as a
pozzolan. It affects mortar property as a filler and dilution material and acts as a nucleation site for
cement hydration [41,107]. Some researchers see the potential of LP in reducing the carbon footprint of
cementitious products by 15% [107].
3.2. SCMs from Natural Sources
3.2.1. Metakaolin
The raw material for porcelain manufacture is known as china clay or kaolin. It is a type of stone
which is rich in kaolinite. Metakaolin (MK) is a dehydroxylated form of the clay mineral kaolinite.
Purified kaolin clay is calcined at a temperature of 650–900 ◦ C to break down crystalline structure and
drive off water from it [66]. The production of 1 ton of MK requires 2.95 GJ of energy and releases 175 kg
of CO2 [65]. These values are 74% and 27% of those of the cement production process, respectively.
Having a high specific surface area or surface fineness and irregular structure, MK raises the water
demand of cementitious material for a given flowability. The calcination method determines the shape
of MK particles. Smooth surface particles are produced through flash calcination [65]. MK mainly
contains SiO2 and Al2 O3 (Table 2). Owing to these minerals, MK shows an excellent pozzolanic effect
on cement hydration in cementitious composites. Almost every study reported a positive impact of
MK on the strength of mortar.
3.2.2. Volcanic Ash

During volcanic eruptions, volcanic ash (VA) is formed by shattering of solid rock and separation
of magma. The explosion during an eruption tears the magma and solid rock surrounding the volcanic
vent into particles from clay to sand size. The particle size of VA decreases exponentially with the
distance from the volcano [108]. Ancient Romans were the pioneers in using VA to make durable
mortars for salty environments [62,109]. Usually, VA consists of volcanic glass, minerals or crystals, and
other rock fragments (lithics) [108]. Italy is the largest producer of VA. The other major VA producing
countries are Chile, Canada, Spain, Turkey, and the USA. VA is rich in SiO2 and Al2 O3 (Table 2). It
satisfies the criteria for Class N pozzolana [68,69].
3.3. SCMs from Agricultural Wastes
3.3.1. Palm Oil Fuel Ash

Palm oil is one of the most important agricultural products in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand,
and some other countries. Palm oil residues are used as fuel. This waste goes through the burning
operation at 800–1000 ◦ C for electricity generation. In 2010, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand together
produced approximately 7 million tons of ash in palm oil mills [110]. This ash is known as palm oil fuel
ash (POFA). An appreciable content of SiO2 (Table 2) gives the pozzolanic property to POFA. The raw
POFA particles are porous and large, containing a considerable amount of unburnt carbon. The use of
POFA without prior treatment may cause some undesirable effects on the properties of cement-based
materials [76,111]. Treated POFA can save as much as 80% of OPC without compromising the key
properties of mortar [74].
3.3.2. Rice Husk Ash

China, India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are the top rice producers in the world. The global rice
production in 2016 was 716 million metric tons [112]. This amount of rice generated about 150 million
metric tons of rice husk. Rice husk is used as a fuel in the boiler for power generation. The ash obtained
from the burning of rice husks is known as rice husk ash (RHA). Approximately, 30 million metric tons
of RHA can be produced from the present global rice production [83,113]. The physical and chemical
properties of RHA vary depending on the burning process of rice husks. A burning temperature lower
than 500 ◦ C leaves an objectionable amount of unburnt carbon in the resulting ash [78,83]. Again,
the silica may form inactive crystals if the temperature is higher than 800 ◦ C. Moreover, the burning
duration should be long enough to burn out all cellulose contained in rice husks and leave white
or grey ash [113]. A temperature of 550–700 ◦ C for 1 h, followed by grinding is recommended for
high-quality RHA [78]. A proper burning and grinding of rice husks can produce RHA with similar
chemical and mineralogical compositions as SF. Alike SF, RHA mainly consists of SiO2 (Table 2). With
a much lower specific gravity than OPC, RHA increases the volume of cementitious mixture if used as
a partial replacement of cement on w/w basis.
3.4. SCMs from Solid Wastes

Glass is one of the world’s most common commodities. About 11.5 million tons of waste glass are
generated annually in the USA, with a recycling rate of only 27% [114]. About 3 million tons of glass
were produced in 2011 only in Brazil [85]. In 2001, the amount of nonrecyclable waste glass that went
into landfills in the UK was about 1.65 million tons [115]. In 2015, Korea alone produced 40,000 tons of
waste of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) glass panels [116]. Although waste glass powder (WGP) can be
categorized as a pozzolanic-cementitious material according to ASTM C618, the risk of alkali-silica
reaction (ASR) has limited its use in cement-based materials [84,115,117]. WGP is enriched in SiO2
content; CaO quantity is also significant (Table 2). Unlike other common SCMs, a high content of Na2 O
is present in WGP. This Na2 O may form water-absorbing N–H–S gel in the hardened cement-based
products, causing expansion leading to cracking and spalling of hydrated cementitious compound. The
use of low calcium SCM along with WGP of smaller particles can minimize the chance of ASR [84,118].
If there is not enough SiO2 left after the pozzolanic reaction, ASR cannot occur.
4. Principal Functioning Mechanisms of SCMs

The effects of SCMs are governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.
Dodson [119] described that SCMs influence the properties of cement-based materials by:
• dispersing cement particles,

• modifying the kinetics of the hydration of cement,
• reacting with the secondary product of cement hydration, and
• physically filling the pore spaces in cement paste.
Practically cement paste is a yield stress fluid [120]. The viscosity of binder paste generates viscous
stress, resisting the mortar flow. Different sizes of particles move at different rates, causing shear
stresses by collision, friction, and interlocking. The interaction between binder paste and aggregate
particles also generates stress. Lu et al. [121] have identified the following sources of resistance against
the mortar flow:
• the yield stress of binder paste,

• the viscous stress of binder paste,
Practically cement paste is a yield stress fluid [120]. The viscosity of binder paste generates
viscous stress, resisting the mortar flow. Different sizes of particles move at different rates, causing
shear stresses by collision, friction, and interlocking. The interaction between binder paste and
aggregate particles also generates stress. Lu et al. [121] have identified the following sources of
resistance 2020,
Sustainability against the mortar flow:
12, 3888 8 of 35
• the yield stress of binder paste,
• the viscous stress of binder paste,
• • the between
the interaction thebetween
interaction binder paste and aggregates,
the binder paste and and
aggregates, and
• the stress• resulting
the stressfrom the movement
resulting from theof aggregates.
movement of aggregates.
Figure 1 illustrates the active forces against the flow of mortar, as illustrated by Lu et al. [121].
Figure 1 illustrates the active forces against the flow of mortar, as illustrated by Lu et al. [121].
Figure 1. Forces
Figure 1. Forces against
against the
the mortar
mortar flow
flow as
as portrayed
portrayed by
by Lu
Lu et
et al.
al. [121].
[121].
Roussel
Roussel etet al.
al. [120]
[120] have
have identified
identified four
four main
main forces
forces that
that determine
determine the the rheological
rheological nature
nature of
of the
the
binder paste:
binder paste:
• surface •forcessurface forces (or
(or colloidal colloidal interactions),
interactions),
• Brownian • forces,
Brownian forces,
• hydrodynamic forces, and
• hydrodynamic forces, and
• various contact forces between particles.
• various contact forces between particles.
The fresh properties of mortar are basically affected by the size, shape, and surface area of its
solidThe
ingredients. Smoothof
fresh properties and spherical
mortar particlesaffected
are basically usually by improve theshape,
the size, flow properties
and surface of area
mortar by
of its
ball-bearing
solid effect Smooth
ingredients. [29]. In contrast, the smaller
and spherical sizeusually
particles and higher surface
improve thearea
flowof properties
particles usually reduce
of mortar by
the flowability
ball-bearing of mortar
effect [29]. In mixture
contrast,due to the increased
the smaller water demand
size and higher for wetness;
surface area also,
of particles angular
usually and
reduce
porous
the particlesofabsorb
flowability mortarsome mixing
mixture duewater
to theand thus decrease
increased the flowability
water demand of mortar
for wetness; also,mixture
angular[122].
and
The static
porous stability
particles of a some
absorb freshly mixed
mixing cement-based
water materialthe
and thus decrease depends on the
flowability of yield
mortarstress (fluidity)
mixture [122].
and static
The the difference
stability between the densities
of a freshly of binder paste
mixed cement-based and aggregates
material depends [123].
on theOn the stress
yield other hand, the
(fluidity)
dynamic
and stability of
the difference a cementitious
between mixture
the densities mostly
of binder depends
paste on its viscosity
and aggregates [123]. [124].
On theInother
closehand,
distance,
the
van der Waals
dynamic force
stability of is
a the most dominant
cementitious mixture force among
mostly the particles
depends on its in binder paste
viscosity [124].[125]. Electrostatic
In close distance,
repulsion
van alsoforce
der Waals originates from dominant
is the most the adsorbedforceions at the
among theparticle
particlessurface [126].
in binder A [125].
paste smaller portion of
Electrostatic
cement particles
repulsion may have
also originates fromBrownian motion
the adsorbed and
ions at diffuse through
the particle the [126].
surface liquid.AUsually,
smaller most SCM
portion of
cement particles may have Brownian motion and diffuse through the liquid. Usually, most SCM
particles are far smaller than cement particles. The substitution of a portion of cement by such particles
may significantly increase the Brownian motion, resulting in higher diffusion, reduced bleeding,
and more stable suspension [120].
Brownian motion causes the diffusion of cement particles through the liquid. In the course,
the particles may come close enough to develop the van der Waals force of attraction. Usually, Brownian
motion and electrostatic repulsion are not enough alone or even together to overcome van der Waals
force. The addition of water-reducing admixture may increase the distance among particles by getting
adsorbed on the surface of cement particles and causing electrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance,
thus reducing the magnitude of van der Waals force [120]. These interparticle forces are influenced by
the hydration process of cementitious ingredients, material properties, mixture proportions, mixing
and placement procedures, elapsed time, ambient temperature, relative humidity, etc. [52].
SCM particles decrease the porosity and increase the strength by filling up the gaps between
cement particles. This effect is termed as “filler effect” [127]. The surface of SCM particles affects
the hydration in two ways. Providing additional nucleation sites, SCM particles help the hydration
products to precipitate [128]. In addition, calcium ions get adsorbed on the SCM surface, resulting in a
lower Ca/Si ratio, which leads to the stability of the initial C–S–H (calcium-silicate-hydrate) layer in
cement-based materials [129].
Effective water-to-cement (w/c) ratio directly affects the porosity and strength of mortar. The
lower ratio gives more strength and less porosity. Partial cement replacement by any SCM will raise the
effective w/c ratio at a constant water-to-binder (w/b) ratio. This phenomenon is called “dilution effect”.
The dilution effect helps the long-term hydration reaction of cement although the degree of hydration
of binder may be relatively low. That is why the substitution of cement by SCM above a certain
level may harm the mechanical properties of mortar [56,130]. At a constant w/c ratio, the fineness of
binder materials controls the porosity and pore size distribution in cement-based materials such as
mortar [131].
The “pozzolanic effect” of SCM is to react with the secondary product, Ca(OH)2 (calcium hydroxide,
also known as portlandite), of cement hydration to form additional C–S–H gel (secondary C–S–H).
During the pozzolanic reaction, the longer silicate chains are formed as the Ca:Si molar ratio of C–S–H
drops [132]. This secondary C–S–H reduces the porosity in bulk cement paste and improves the
interfacial bond between aggregate particles, and thus increases the strength, density, and ion diffusion
resistance of mortar; pozzolanic activity results in a lower Ca(OH)2 concentration, causing a higher
Ca 2+ dissolution
Sustainability 2020, 12,rate
x FOR PEER
from REVIEW
the 9 of 36
cement particles [41,129]. It is possible that the smallest basic particles
of C–S–H gel (≤ size 4.2 nm) deposit on the walls of large gel pores, which have a diameter of 3–12 nm.
drop of pH to a level at which the embedded steel may start acting as an electrode and become
Such deposition causes a partial or complete blockage of diffusion path, reducing the porosity in
corroded [131].
hardened cement compound [129]. Figure 2 shows an illustration of this phenomenon.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Deposition
Deposition mechanism
mechanism of
of C–S–H
C–S–H particles
particles [129].
[129].
5. Effects of SCMs
Excessive on the Properties
secondary of Structural
hydration may Mortar
have a detrimental effect on the corrosion resistance of
cement-based
The effects of various SCMs on2 the flowability, strength, andsolution,
materials [41]. Ca(OH) provides a buffer for the pore maintaining
durability a minimum
are discussed in the
pH level of 12.6. Extreme pozzolanic activity may damage the pH buffer, resulting in a drop
following subsections. The influences of SCMs on these mortar properties are summarized in Tables of pH to a
level at which the embedded steel may start acting as an electrode and
3 and 4. The best results provided by prominent SCMs are given in Table 5. become corroded [131].
5. Effects of SCMs on the Properties of Structural Mortar

Table 3. Effects of major SCMs on the flow and strength properties of mortar.
The effects of various SCMs on the flowability, strength, and durability are discussed in the
Flowability Strength
following subsections. The influences of SCMs on these mortar properties
Replacement are summarized in Tables 3
Replacement
and
SCM4. The best
Effect results provided
Ratio by prominent
Ref. SCMs are given
Effect in Table 5.
Ratio Ref.
[% w/w] [% w/w]
▲ 5–30 [20,24,25,29,56,89] ▲ 0–40 [22,24,25,43,133,134]
FA
▼ 25–30 [26] ▼ 10–70 [22,24,26,28–30,43,89]
▲ 7.3 [135] ▲ 5–25 [26,39,46,135–137]
SF
▼ 5–20 [26,46,101] ▼ 5–20 [39]
▲ 20–60 [49,50]
GGBS ▲ 10–30 [49]
▼ 10–70 [49,53]
▲ 5–25 [20,87]
WGP ▼ 5–25 [20]
▼ 5–40 [84,85,87,88]
▲ 5–70 [25,46,56,138,139] ▲ 2.4–15 [55,138–140]
LP
▼ 20–30 [138] ▼ 5–50 [41,46,59,62]
Table 3. Effects of major SCMs on the flow and strength properties of mortar.
Flowability Strength
Replacement
Replacement Ratio
SCM Effect Ref. Effect Ratio Ref.
[% w/w]
[% w/w]
N 5–30 [20,24,25,29,56,89] N 0–40 [22,24,25,43,133,134]
FA
H 25–30 [26] H 10–70 [22,24,26,28–30,43,89]
N 7.3 [135] N 5–25 [26,39,46,135–137]
SF
H 5–20 [26,46,101] H 5–20 [39]
N 20–60 [49,50]
GGBS N 10–30 [49]
H 10–70 [49,53]
N 5–25 [20,87]
WGP H 5–25 [20]
H 5–40 [84,85,87,88]
N 5–70 [25,46,56,138,139] N 2.4–15 [55,138–140]
LP
H 20–30 [138] H 5–50 [41,46,59,62]
N 5–20 [43,64,67,141–144]
MK H 12.5–25 [64,65]
H 5–15 [145]
N 5–50 [72] N 10–80 [74,77]
POFA
H 10–30 [76,111] H 10–30 [38,76,111]
N 5–25 [78,83]
RHA H 5–20 [113]
H 5–30 [79,80,83,113]
N 5–33 [32,34,35,146]
BA N 9–41 [32,37]
H 6–41 [32–35,37,38,97,146]
– – – N 20–30 [60]
VA
H 20–50 [60,62,68–71]
Note: “N” indicates an increase and “H” indicates a decrease in the behavior.
Table 4. Effects of major SCMs on the durability properties of mortar.
Carbonation Acid ASR Chloride Freezing and

Sulphate Resistance
Resistance Resistance Resistance Resistance Thawing Resistance
SCM Effect Ref. Effect Ref. Effect Ref. Effect Ref. Effect Ref. Effect Ref.
FA – – – – N [147] N [43,148,149] N [29] N [43]
N [150] [43,
SF N [151] N [152] N [43,84,148,152] N N [43]
H [84] 84]
GGBS – – – – – – N [148,153] N [154] – –
[84,
WGP H [84] – – N N [84,152] N [84] – –
152]
– – – – No effect [148,149] – – – –
LP H [58]
H [155]
[43,
N
MK H [58] N [151] N [156] N [43,148,156] 151] N [64]
H [67]
POFA – – – – – – N [157] – – – –
[79,
RHA – – N [81] – – N [158] N 80, – –
90]
– – N [146] – –
BA H [146] N [146] H [146]
H [35]
VA – – – – N [69] – – N [70] – –
Note: “N” indicates an increase and “H” indicates a decrease in the behavior.
Table 5. Best performance of prominent SCMs.
Flow Spread Compressive Strength (28 days)

Value Replacement Ratio w/b Ratio Value Replacement Ratio w/b Ratio
SCM Ref. Ref.
[mm] [% w/w] (% w/w) [MPa] [% w/w] (% w/w)
FA 241 25.0 0.43 [26] 122 35.0 0.21 [133]
SF 369 7.3 0.46 [135] 118 7.3 0.20 [135]
GGBS 232 30.0 0.70 [49] 57 50.0 – [50]
WGP 216 5.0 0.40 [20] 56 20.0 0.35 [87]
LP 445 30.0 0.34 [139] 69 15.0 0.35 [25]
MK – – – – 120 20.0 0.30 [67]
POFA 310 5.0 0.35 [72] 75 10.0 0.35 [111]
RHA 255 20.0 0.84 [113] 70 20.0 0.40 [83]
BA 230 21.0 0.38 [37] 82 5.0 0.52 [35]
VA – – – – 45 10.0 0.40 [68]
5.1. Fly Ash (FA)
5.1.1. Effects on Flowability

FA particles are relatively smoother and spherical compared to cement particles. The ball-bearing
effect of the smooth spherical particles of FA usually improves the flow properties of mortar [29]. The
flowability of mortar increases with the increased FA content up to 30% [25]. The mortar mixture with
30% FA exhibited a similar flowability with 42% less superplasticizer (SP) as compared with the mortar
mixture without FA [89]. A similar effect was observed in the studies of Parghi and Alam [20] as well
as Silva and de Brito [56]. Along with the drop in SP demand, the optimum dosage of SP also decreases
as the FA content rises [30]. Even at 70% replacement of cement, for the mortar prepared with 0.40 w/b
ratio, a flow spread of 194 mm was recorded, when examined according to ASTM C1437 [159]; this
flow value was 45% higher than that of the control mixture [24]. FA was also successfully used to
prepare self-compacting mortar. In one study, the self-compacting mortars including 25%–40% FA
exhibited 11.0–14.8 s V-funnel flow time (measured using a mini V-funnel modified for testing mortar
instead of concrete) and 241–250 mm flow spread, compared to the 7.1 s flow time and 247 mm flow
spread of the control mortar [26].
The fluidity of a mortar mixture is highly influenced by the particle size of FA. Smaller FA particles
give a better flow. The mortar mixture including 5% ultra-fine FA (mean size 3.4 µm) as a partial
replacement of cement provided a flow spread of 140 mm, which is 4.5% higher than the 135 mm flow
spread of the control mixture; a 40% replacement of cement by normal-size FA was required to achieve
the same level of flowability; at a 15% replacement of cement by this ultra-fine FA, a flow spread of
160 mm was achieved; all the mortar mixtures had a constant water content of 160 kg/m3 [24]. The
mortar mixture with 20% and 40% FA microsphere (mean size 2.6 µm) gave a flow spread (measured
using a mini-slump cone) of 225 mm and 247.5 mm, respectively, at a w/b ratio of 0.49; this is 7.14% and
17.8% higher than the flow spread of OPC mortar [133]. As smaller particles experience more Brownian
motion, they result in a better flow due to enhanced dispersion of mortar particles. Despite all the
above-mentioned positive effects, high cement replacement by FA (more than 30%) at a relatively high
w/b ratio may cause segregation and bleeding problems in mortar mixtures [64].
5.1.2. Effects on Strength

Due to the dilution effect and slow pozzolanic reaction, FA has an adverse effect on the early-age
strength of mortar. The early-age strength goes down for a cement replacement by FA in the range
of 10%–70% [24,26,28–30,43,89,160]. The use of 40% FA causes a 34% decrease in the 28-day tensile
strength of mortar [26]. The higher the amount of FA, the lower is the early-age strength [26,29].
The strength gap between the mortar with OPC alone and the mortar with binary FA-OPC binder
decreases with age. In some studies, it took 90 days to show a similar or better strength compared
to the control mortar [28,29]. Other investigations have shown that it took a longer time to gain a
similar strength [26,43]. In the study of Mardani-Aghabaglou et al. [43], the mortar with 10% FA took
200 days to reach the strength of the control mortar; at 300 days, it achieved 5% higher strength. In
contradiction with the general trend, Antoni et al. [25] have reported 1.5%–4.5% more compressive
strength for 10%–30% FA at the w/b ratio of 0.35.
The particle size of FA plays a significant role in the strength gain of mortar. The mortar with 8%
ultra-fine FA (mean size 3.4 µm) as a partial replacement of cement provided 23% higher compressive
strength than the control mortar; it showed a better strength up to 15% cement replacement [24].
The use of FA microsphere (mean size 2.6 µm) produced 116.2 and 121.9 MPa compressive strength
at 20% and 40% cement replacement in mortar mixture, respectively, compared to the 96.2 MPa
compressive strength of OPC mortar [133,135]. A w/c ratio lower than 0.27 is required for such high
strengths. Figure 3 shows the detailed results. Using FA microsphere causes a drop in the optimum
w/c ratio. It results in more strength at the same flowability, or otherwise, more flowability at the same
strength [133]. Due to the lack of lime, nano-FA (mean size 0.04 µm) cannot produce a better strength
substitutions by FA, after exposure to high temperature. The mortars containing 20%–60% FA
retained approximately 80% of their unheated (27 °C) strength up to 400 °C. At 600 °C and 800 °C,
the strength loss is up to 45% and 80%, respectively, for 60% FA. The mortar with 20% FA showed a
better performance as compared with the mortars including 40% and 60% FA. At all temperatures,
the mortar containing 20% FA had a better strength than the control mortar, though the percentage
of strength loss was almost the same. Thus, FA mortar is considered suitable for application in the
cases with high fire risk [67]. FA also improves the resistance of mortar against ASR. The mortar
samples
at 7 days.containing
Accompanied 60%–80% coal combustion
by nano-lime, it can show by-product (95%strength
14.81% more FA) had an age
at the ASRofexpansion
7 days [134].of
0.058%–0.035%
Smaller particlesafter
have28a days
betterimmersion
filler effect.inIn1 addition,
N NaOHwithsolution
moreatsurface
80 °C. area,
In thesmaller
same condition, the
particles offer
OPC mortar samples suffered 0.212% expansion [147].
higher reactivity during secondary hydration. As a result, these effects contribute to increase the
strength of mortar.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Effects
Effects of
of FA
FA microsphere
microsphere (FAM) and condensed
(FAM) and condensed SF
SF (CSF)
(CSF) on
on the
the mortar
mortar strength
strength at
at different
different
w/cm or
w/cm or w/b
w/b ratios
ratios [135].
[135]. [W/CM
[W/CM ratio
ratio =
= water-to-cementitious material ratio].
water-to-cementitious material ratio].
5.1.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

FA improves the sulphate resistance of mortar marginally. The mortar samples with 10% FA
showed 0.1% expansion in 180 days [43]. Moreover, the mortar samples prepared with moderate C3 A
(8%–9%) cement, 4%–22% LP, and 15% FA had less than 0.04% expansion after 12 months [148]. It was
also reported that Class F FA can improve the sulphate resistance of mortar at a temperature as low as
5 ◦ C [149]. However, it should be mentioned that the pozzolanic activity of FA forms both needle-like
and ball ettringites. The needle-like ettringite formation has an expansive nature. This process may
create micro-crack in the matrix and thus it could limit the sulphate resistance of mortar [43].
Figure 4 shows the compressive strength values of different mortars, with 20%–60% cement
substitutions by FA, after exposure to high temperature. The mortars containing 20%–60% FA retained
approximately 80% of their unheated (27 ◦ C) strength up to 400 ◦ C. At 600 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C, the strength
loss is up to 45% and 80%, respectively, for 60% FA. The mortar with 20% FA showed a better
performance as compared with the mortars including 40% and 60% FA. At all temperatures, the mortar
containing 20% FA had a better strength than the control mortar, though the percentage of strength
loss was almost the same. Thus, FA mortar is considered suitable for application in the cases with high
fire risk [67]. FA also improves the resistance of mortar against ASR. The mortar samples containing
60%–80% coal combustion by-product (95% FA) had an ASR expansion of 0.058%–0.035% after 28 days
immersion in 1 N NaOH solution at 80 ◦ C. In the same condition, the OPC mortar samples suffered
0.212% expansion [147].
Densifying the matrix, FA improves the transport properties of mortar. FA decreased the chloride
permeability of mortar at all ages for 10% cement replacement and after 90 days for 20% cement
replacement [29,43]. Similarly, almost two-fold and more than three-fold electrical resistivity values
were recorded at 180 days for 10% and 20% FA, respectively [29]. Freezing and thawing behavior is
highly influenced by the degree of saturation. That is why certain transport properties (e.g., water
absorption, water permeability) can be considered as an indirect measure of freezing and thawing
resistance. Same as the transport properties, the freezing and thawing resistance of mortar improves
with the inclusion of FA. After 300 freeze-thaw cycles, 18% of the compressive strength of 10% FA
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 36
mortar was lost while 26% was lost for the mortar with no FA [43].
Effect
Figure 4. Figure of ofFA
4. Effect andMKMK
FA and on theon thestrength
mortar mortar strength
at different at different
temperatures [67]. [PCtemperatures
= Portland [67].
[PC = Portland
cement].
cement].
FA poses Densifying the matrix, FA improves the transport properties of mortar. FA decreased the
a higher risk of heavy metal leaching, compared to BA and GGBS. Some metals like Ti,
chloride permeability of mortar at all ages for 10% cement replacement and after 90 days for 20%
Mo, B, andcement
Cu had a higher degree
replacement [29,43]. of release
Similarly, from
almost the stabilized
two-fold and more thancement-FA mixture.
three-fold electrical The presence of
resistivity
chloride and sulphate in FA may have caused this phenomenon [95]. In addition, metallic
values were recorded at 180 days for 10% and 20% FA, respectively [29]. Freezing and thawing Al and Zn of
behavior is highly influenced by the degree of saturation. That is why certain transport
FA may produce H2 during cement hydration. A significant amount of H2 might result in expansion properties
and voids (e.g., water absorption, water permeability) can be considered as an indirect measure of freezing and
in cement-based materials [161].
thawing resistance. Same as the transport properties, the freezing and thawing resistance of mortar
improves with the inclusion of FA. After 300 freeze-thaw cycles, 18% of the compressive strength of
5.2. Bottom10%
AshFA(BA)
mortar was lost while 26% was lost for the mortar with no FA [43].
FA poses a higher risk of heavy metal leaching, compared to BA and GGBS. Some metals like Ti,
5.2.1. Effects
Mo,onB, Flowability
and Cu had a higher degree of release from the stabilized cement-FA mixture. The presence
of chloride and sulphate in FA may have caused this phenomenon [95]. In addition, metallic Al and
The effect of BA on the mortar flowability depends on its particle size and treatment process.
Zn of FA may produce H2 during cement hydration. A significant amount of H2 might result in
Ground orexpansion
sieved BA andof 425inµm
voids size enhanced
cement-based the[161].
materials flowability of mortar mixture; 21% of both ground
and sieved BA provided a flow spread in the range of 225–232 mm, while the OPC mortar had a
5.2. Bottom Ash (BA)
flow spread of 158 mm; the advantage of using sieved BA lies in retaining the flowability of mortar
mixture for5.2.1.
a longer
Effectstime. The mortar with sieved BA lost a little amount of flow after 1 h following the
on Flowability
completion of mixing compared to the mortar containing ground BA as well as the control mortar with
The effect of BA on the mortar flowability depends on its particle size and treatment process.
100% OPC;Ground
after 1orh,sieved
the flow
BA ofspread
425 µm sizeof the mortar
enhanced theincluding
flowability sieved
of mortarBA was above
mixture; 220 ground
21% of both mm; the mortar
with ground andBA andBA
sieved the controla flow
provided mortar had
spread in 199 and of
the range 130 mm flow
225–232 spread,
mm, while respectively;
the OPC mortar had the presence of
a flow
spread of 158 mm; the advantage of using sieved BA lies in retaining the
a higher level of washable carbon in ground BA may have caused this phenomenon [37]. Besides, theflowability of mortar mixture
for a longer time. The mortar with sieved BA lost a little amount of flow after 1 hour following the
mortar with 41% pulverized BA of mean particle size 4.5 µm yielded 14% higher flowability than the
completion of mixing compared to the mortar containing ground BA as well as the control mortar
OPC mortar; withthe
100%same
OPC;amount
after 1 h, of
theBAflowof size of
spread 6.3theµm provided
mortar including a sieved
flow spread of 112
BA was above mm,
220 mm; which
the was a
little higher than that given by 4.5 µm BA [32]. Smaller BA particles are subjected to higher Brownian
mortar with ground BA and the control mortar had 199 and 130 mm flow spread, respectively; the
motion butpresence
requireofmorea higher levelto
water of cover
washable carbon
their in ground
surface withBA themay
samehavefilm
caused this phenomenon
thickness. [37]. opposing
These two
Besides, the mortar with 41% pulverized BA of mean particle size 4.5 µm yielded 14% higher
conditions significantly influence the overall effect of BA on the flowability of mortar mixture.

The particle size, surface fineness, treatment process, and quantity of BA influence the strength of
mortar. The particle size distribution of BA also influences the mortar strength. For 0–2 mm particles,
6% biomass BA provided the 28 days compressive strength of 52 MPa, which is 89.4% of the strength
of the control mortar; for any further addition, the compressive strength decreased; high porosity, high
organic matter content (5.26%), and high abrasion susceptibility (29%) were responsible for this drop in
strength [97]. Crushing to a particle size finer than 125 µm, combusting at 800 ◦ C for 18 h and removing
lightweight particles by flotation were applied to improve the quality of biomass BA; among these
techniques, crushing was the most effective; for a 13% crushed biomass BA, the compressive strength
was increased from 25 MPa to 36 MPa; the application of all three processes on the same sample
provided 52 MPa strength for the mortar with the same BA content, while the OPC mortar strength
was 58 MPa [33]. The positive impact of BA was observed when it was ground to a size finer than OPC;
the mortar with 10% such BA provided the 28 days compressive strength of 54 MPa, which was a little
higher than that of the corresponding control mortar; in the case of 25% such BA, the mortar samples
still passed the minimum strength requirement of 42.5 MPa [34]. The pulverized sub-bituminous BA
was milled for 0.5 and 3 h to make it two and three times finer than OPC (mean particle size of 6.3 µm
and 4.5 µm; Blaine fineness of 800 m2 /kg and 1000 m2 /kg), respectively; for 9% cement replacement, the
mortar with such BA gained 4.3% and 10.7% higher strength than the control mortar [32]. After ball
milling for 2 h and sieving by 300 µm sieve, 5% BA mortar provided 82 MPa compressive strength at
28 days, compared to the 78 MPa compressive strength of the control mortar; 20% BA mortar provided
85% strength of the control mortar at 28 days [35]. The compressive strength dropped for 10%–20%
coal BA with the particle size finer than 425 µm (ground or sieved); 67–72 MPa strength was reported
at 28 days for the mortars with this replacement range, while the control mortar had a compressive
strength of 79 MPa [37]. Surprisingly, the mortar containing BA of particles finer than 300 µm lost
about 32%–42% of its 28-day strength at 180 days; 454,000 parts per billion (ppb) of potassium (K+ ) ions
were detected in the solutions (water plus dissolved salts) processed from the water absorption test of
30% BA mortar samples; this value was only 52,700 ppb for the control mortar samples; ASR may have
occurred at this high concentration of dissolved K+ ions, resulting in degradation of amorphous, as
well as crystalline silica: the progressive dissolution of K+ ions in ASR imparts the loss of mechanical
properties at later ages [35].

The water sorption and porosity of mortar progressively increase with the biomass BA
content [33,97]. Crushing biomass BA down to 125 µm improves the situation, though the water
sorption and porosity of BA mortar still remain higher than those of the control mortar; at 28 days,
the porosity of the mortars with 0% BA (100% OPC), 13% BA, and 13% crushed BA was recorded as
9.12%, 10.86%, and 10.62%, respectively; a similar trend was observed for water sorption. At the same
age, the recorded sorption values were 3.4, 5.12, and 5.04 kg/m2 .min1/2 , respectively [33]. Another
study revealed that the water absorption and porosity of BA mortar increased during the longer curing
period in contrast with the OPC mortar; the water absorption rate of 20% BA mortar was 5.3% and
10.1% at 28 and 180 days, respectively [35]. The release of K+ ions from BA may have triggered the
disintegration of silica to cause ASR in mortar and therefore increased the water absorption at later
age [35].
The presence of BA improves the resistance of mortar against sulphate attack and ASR; a past
study showed that the positive effect of BA is more prominent at higher replacement levels (25%–35%);
on the other hand, the BA mortar mixtures were less resistant to carbonation and freezing-thawing
action [146]. In addition, the change in the length of the mortar samples in shrinkage test increases
with the content of BA, although it stays below the maximum permissible value of 0.05% up to 30%
replacement [33,35,162]. The treatments with calcination and combustion along with the removal of
light particles significantly reduce shrinkage [33]. After 32 days curing, the autogenous shrinkage of
the mortar containing 10%–20% BA was lower than that of the control mortar [37]. Furthermore, the
use of BA may cause leaching of various chemicals (e.g., Al, Sr, Na, K, Ca, Si, S, P) from the mortar
mixture; at ambient temperature, a lower pH causes higher leaching [34]. Similar alkalinities of cement
and incinerator BA and cement solidification mitigate the risk of leaching, making BA a favorable
material for cement replacement [98].
5.3. Silica Fume (SF)

Because of having much lower particle size and high surface area than OPC, SF reduces the
flowability of the fresh mortar mixture at a given water content. Higher surface area requires more
water to create the same water film thickness surrounding the particles. Turk [26] has reported inferior
flow for the 5%–20% cement replacement with SF. The mortar mixture including 15% SF exhibited 7%
less flowability than the mortar mixture with 100% OPC [46]. The inclusion of SF causes a significant
rise in flow time due to increased viscosity. The mortar mixture with 20% SF resulted in 90 s flow time,
compared to only 2 s flow time for the OPC mortar mixture. However, CaSi type SF (73% SiO2 and 18%
CaO, BET fineness from 22 m2 /g) had no impact on the viscosity of the freshly mixed mortar, when the
cement replacement was less than 10% [39].
Condensed SF (specific surface area, 13.3 × 106 m2 /m3 , as obtained using the method proposed by
Hunger and Brouwers [163]) lowers the minimum w/b ratio required for the mortar mixture to flow and
increases the flowability at the same w/b ratio [135]. The incorporation of SF increases the paste volume
for a given w/b ratio because of its lower specific gravity than cement (refer to Table 2). Consequently,
it can increase the mortar flowability through enhanced dispersion of aggregate particles. Furthermore,
the higher Brownian motion of small SF particles causes a positive impact on the mortar flowability. At
the w/b ratio of 0.45, 7.3% condensed SF induced a flow spread of 269 mm (369 mm, without subtracting
the base diameter) and a flow rate of 535 ml/s, while it was only 210 mm (310 mm, including the base
diameter of the cone) and 405 ml/s, respectively, in the case of the control mortar [135,164]. Because
of the size gap between cement and condensed SF particles, it is recommended to add another SCM
of intermediate size for a better flowability [165]. The use of FA microsphere (specific surface area:
3.95 × 106 m2 /m3 found by the Hunger and Brouwers method [163]) combined with condensed SF
showed a good synergistic effect [135].

SF consumes the Ca(OH)2 crystals released from the cement hydration process, leading to the
formation of secondary C–S–H. This C–S–H reduces porosity, improves the interfacial bond between
aggregate particles, and thus increases the strength properties of mortar. At the ages of 28 and 90 days,
10% SF produced the greatest mortar strength among 5%–20% cement replacements [26,39,46]; the
mortar with 10% SF gained the compressive strength of 81 MPa at 90 days [39]. Having a larger specific
surface area or surface fineness than cement, SF can reduce segregation and bleeding tendency even at
higher SP dosages [101,166], thus contributing to higher strength. In one study, the mortar with 15%
SF required 3.28% SP (by weight of binder) and gained 63.8 MPa strength at 28 days compared to the
54.4 MPa compressive strength of the control mortar without any SF where only 1.56% SP was used;
the use of more SP allowed lower w/b ratio and improved compaction [136]. At later ages, higher SF
contents may perform slightly better. The mortar with 20% SF achieved 65.2 MPa compressive strength
at 91 days, whereas the mortars including 10% SF and 0% SF (100% OPC) provided 62.6 MPa and
60.6 MPa strength, respectively, at the same age [26]. However, an increase in CaSi SF content from 5%
to 20% led to a linear decrease in compressive strength; 20% CaSi SF caused a 35% decrease in 28-day
strength [39].
Condensed SF has a high specific surface area of 13.3 × 106 m2 /m3 (measured by the Hunger and
Brouwers method [163]) because of extremely low particle size. Thus, the inclusion of condensed SF
decreases the optimum w/c ratio and increases the mortar strength. The mortar with 7.3% condensed
SF had an optimum w/c ratio of 0.199 and achieved 117.6 MPa compressive strength at 28 days but it
was 0.289 and 96.2 MPa strength was obtained in the case of the control mortar [135]. Not only the
particle size and surface area but also the size distribution of SF particles affects the strength properties
of mortar. The mortar including SF with an average particle size of 12 µm and a size distribution over
0–150 µm showed lower strength than the control mortar with 100% OPC. On the contrary, the mortar
including 25% SF, with a 45-µm sieve residue of 0.98% and a size distribution over 0–600 µm, provided
3.5% more strength at 28 days; therefore, a 0.98%–4.13% residue on the 45-µm sieve is advisable for the
use of SF in high performance mortar [137]. In the presence of 5%–35% LP, SF replacement causes an
adverse effect on the strength of mortar due to the reduction of hydraulically active clinker fraction of
cement [46].

As the proportion of SF goes up, the density of mortar goes down due to the lower unit weight of
SF compared to that of cement [26]. However, smaller condensed SF particles cause a rise in packing
density and a drop in void ratio; a 7.3% cement replacement caused 8.84% rise in packing density
and 30.75% drop in void ratio [135]. In the mortar containing SF, ettringite is only formed inside the
pores; the expansion values of SF mortar are lower than those of OPC mortar upon 300 days sulphate
exposure due to the absence of needle-like ettringite on the outside of the pores [43]. The mortar
samples with 8% cement replacement by SF experienced an expansion of less than 0.1% after 12 months
immersion in sulphate solution at 23 ◦ C; the improvement in sulphate resistance was more evident
at 5 ◦ C [148]. A combination of 10% SF and 90% OPC conforms with the requirements of sulphate
resisting cement [152,167]. The chloride resistance of mortar also increases when SF is used. Only 10%
SF can lessen the chloride charges passed by 75% and keep them below 1000 coulombs [43], which
is categorized as “very low” in accordance with ASTM C1202 [43,168]. In the presence of micro-SF
and/or nano-SF, the carbonation depth of mortar also decreases significantly. The inclusion of 10%
micro-SF (finer than 0.5 µm) can cut the carbonation depth of the control mortar by 25% after 28 days
of carbonation. Similar improvement was achieved by 1% nano-SF (5–20 nm size) [150]. The mortar
samples including 5%–10% SF experienced a mass loss of less than 4% after immersion in sulphuric
acid (pH = 1) for 390 days. This value was better than that of the control mortar samples, which had
9% mass loss on average. In the case of acetic acid (pH = 3), 390 days sulphate exposure caused about
50% mass loss for the mortar samples containing 0%–10% SF [151]. The formation of secondary C–S–H
also improves the resistance against ASR; 10% replacement of OPC by SF decreased the expansion
of mortar samples from 0.19% to 0.02% after 14 days of exposure to NaOH. This value was much
lower than the allowable maximum limit of 0.10% [152,169]. The water absorption of mortar is also
decreased in the presence of SF. The incorporation of 10% SF dropped the water absorption value to
1.8%, which was 60% less than the absorption value of the control mortar [43]. This value is specified
as “good” in accordance with CEB-FIP [43,170]. The effect of SF on the thermal conductivity of mortar
is also negligible [47]. Moreover, SF shows superior performance against frost-action in the absence
of air-entraining agents. The loss in mass and compressive strength of the control mortar was 1.36%
and 26%, respectively, after 300 freeze-thaw cycles; with 10% SF, these values fell off to 0.48% and 7%,
respectively [43]. The properties like carbonation and sulphate resistances are mostly influenced by the
pozzolanic activity of SF. A small amount (1%–2%) of nano-SF can achieve the equivalent resistance of
a much higher amount (10%–20%) of micro-SF. On the contrary, the properties like porosity, water
absorption, and chloride penetration depend on both the pozzolanic and filler effects of SF. Only SF
nanoparticles may not provide a satisfactory level of performance in such cases. A combination of
micro-SF and nano-SF is recommended to achieve good durability of mortar [150].
5.4. Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS)

GGBS enhances the flowability of mortar mixture due to its conducive surface characteristics.
With the addition of GGBS, the flowability can be enhanced for 10%–30% cement replacement. At
30% substitution, the flow spread of mortar was raised by 28 mm (from 204 mm to 232 mm) [49]. The
influence of GGBS on the mortar flowability depends largely on the surface morphology of GGBS
particles. GGBS consisting of particles with smoother surface enhances the flowability of mortar
mixture [153].

Although 10% GGBS resulted in lower compressive strength, larger amounts showed a significant
improvement in the mortar strength as compared with OPC alone [49]. For 50% GGBS, the compressive
strength of mortar was increased by 4.6%–15.1% depending on the binder content and SP dosage [50].
The positive effect of GGBS on the mortar strength is more pronounced at a lower binder content. The
highest compressive strength (56.7 MPa) was achieved at 1:2 binder-to-sand ratio and 0.4% SP. The
mortar with 60% cement replacement had a similar strength as compared with the control mortar [50].
In another investigation, 30% GGBS showed a better strength than 50% GGBS [60]. At high-temperature
curing, the loss in strength is higher in the mortars with GGBS; however, both 30% and 50% GGBS can
retain a better strength at least up to 60 ◦ C curing temperature [60].
The strength development is slower in GGBS mortars. The half-strength age of the mortar with
50% GGBS is 13.4 days whereas it is only 3.4 days for the mortar with no GGBS. This gap closes with
the rise in curing temperature. At 60 ◦ C, the half-strength age of the above-mentioned mortars is
1.2 days and 1 day, respectively [60]. In binary blending with calcium aluminate cement (CAC), GGBS
converts CAH10 (monocalcium aluminate decahydrate) mostly to C2 ASH8 (straetlingite) instead of
C3 AH6 (katoite) up to 210 days; it hinders the strength reduction due to the conversion of CAH10 to
C3 AH6 ; thus, the strength progressively increases beyond 28 days [48]. This eliminates the primary
drawback of using pure CAC under hot climatic conditions. With the inclusion of 80% GGBS, 20%
loss in ultimate strength turns into 50% gain at 20 ◦ C; a GGBS content of more than 40% causes the
formation of stable straetlingite (C2 ASH8 ), hindering the formation of C3 AH6 , resulting in less porosity
and more strength; the mortar with 40% GGBS achieves an ultimate compressive strength more than
40 MPa if cured continuously at 50 ◦ C for 210 days; the same mortar reached 75.7 MPa when cured at
20 ◦ C for 28 days and then at 50 ◦ C for 182 days [48].

The slow rate of pozzolanic reaction causes high porosity and water absorption for GGBS mortar
at an early age. After 28 days, both 20% and 30% GGBS show a better performance. The mortar
with 30% GGBS had a water absorption value less than 12% [49]. In addition, GGBS improves the
resistance of mortar against sulphate attack. Pozzolanic reaction leaves very little Ca(OH)2 to form
ettringite and reduces the permeability of mortar by closing pore openings with secondary C–S–H.
Additionally, GGBS does not contribute to increase the quantity of C3 A in mortar. These effects help
to resist sulphate attack [153]. The mortar samples with only 20% GGBS expanded less than 0.10%
after 12 months immersion in a sulphate solution. At 5 ◦ C, 60% GGBS kept the mortar samples intact
(<0.1% expansion) even after 45 months immersion in Na2 SO4 solution [148]. The chloride diffusion
rate drops with the inclusion of GGBS up to 50% replacement of OPC. The mortar samples without
GGBS had observable chloride ions after 45 days, while 30% GGBS had a breakthrough time of 73 days
with 60% smaller diffusion coefficient. After 270 days, the chloride concentration in the mortar samples
with 0%, 30% and 50% GGBS was 1000, 370, and 40 mg/l, respectively [154]. With an increase in GGBS
content, the electrical resistivity of mortar increases for SSD (saturated surface-dry) condition and
decreases for OD (oven-dry) condition. The mortar with 20% GGBS showed very close values in both
conditions as compared with the control mortar [49].
5.5. Limestone Powder (LP)

The grindability of limestone is higher than that of cement clinker. Hence, LP has a wider
particle size distribution compared to cement. Fine granulated limestone particles can fill in the wide
size-range pores between cement particles and lessen water requirement [46]. For this reason, the
mortar flowability rises with the increased quantity of LP [25,46]. In the study of İnan Sezer [46], the
mortar including 35% LP gave a flow spread of 147 mm. A similar trend was observed in the presence
of pozzolanic materials (e.g., SF, FA). For 15% LP, a flow spread greater than 136 mm was recorded
in the presence of SF and FA [25]. The use of 30%–70% LP led to a slightly greater reduction in the
requirements of both water and SP than FA to ensure self-compatibility [56]. For self-compacting
mortar, the optimum LP content for good flowability is 10%–15%. A flow spread of higher than 300 mm
and a V-funnel flow time of less than 4 s were achieved in this LP range [138]. The viscosity becomes
consistently higher in a mortar with LP. The highest viscosity was attained at 30% LP [138]. The higher
fineness of LP may also enhance the spreading of mortar mixture due to the greater Brownian motion
of smaller particles. The use of 10% LP, passing mesh #1500, induced a flow spread greater than
135 mm at the w/c ratio of 0.35 [25]. The cement paste volume (the volume of water plus the solid
volume of cement in a mortar) has a significant impact on the effectiveness of LP in enhancing the
mortar flowability. At a higher cement paste volume, the use of LP is more effective to increase the flow
spread of mortar; the positive impact of LP on the flowability of mortar mixture was only observed if
the cement paste volume was at least 58% [139].

The chemical reaction of LP with the alumina phases of cement produces carbo-aluminates, which
fill in pore spaces in mortar. Thus, the incorporation of LP contributes to the strength of mortar by
filler effect. After the consumption of all the available alumina, the excess LP cannot react to add to
the strength of cement-based materials [140]. The optimum level of LP was suggested as 2.4% with
respect to the maximum compressive strength of non-self-compacting mortar; for this optimum LP
content, about 20% more compressive strength was achieved at 28 days [140]. For self-compacting
mortar, the optimum LP content for good strength lies in the range of 16%–23%, which provided
50 MPa compressive strength at 28 days [55,138]. An excessive amount of LP is not conducive to the
compressive strength of mortar. The use of 50% LP resulted in a 33% drop in 28-day strength, although
it had a better early (2 days) strength [59]. Some other studies had contradictory findings about the
effect of LP on the strength of mortar. For 5%–35% LP, a drop in compressive strength was observed at
all ages [41,46]. The incorporation of 35% LP provided only 59% compressive strength of the control
mortar at 28 days [46]. The effect of LP on strength is highly influenced by the cement paste volume of
mortar mixture. The strength is impacted positively by LP only for the cement paste volume of 50% or
larger; the mortar with 50% cement paste volume reached the highest level of strength; the use of 36%
LP provided 60 MPa compressive strength at 28 days that was 6.8% higher than the strength of the
control mortar [139].

As a filler, LP lowers the water requirement of mortar mixture for a given flowability, and thus
decreases its porosity; on the other hand, the reduction in cement content increases the effective w/c
ratio, which causes more porosity [171]. The interaction between these two effects determines the end
effect of LP, which is highly influenced by the amount and fineness of LP [107]. Practically, the effect of
20%–30% LP on the porosity of cement paste is insignificant; the porosity increases linearly with further
addition. Several recent studies reported a higher porosity after the inclusion of LP, whereas many
studies reported the opposite trend; few published works showed a lower porosity up to an optimum
level of 15%–18%—more LP above this range resulted in a higher porosity [107]. In combination
with the other SCMs (e.g., FA, GGBS, SF, MK), LP improves the pore structure related properties
(e.g., porosity, absorption, permeability) if used with an appropriate amount [107]. The packing density
decreases as the LP content increases at a fixed cement paste volume. The packing density dropped from
0.720 to 0.705 for a rise in LP content from 0% to 34% at 50% cement paste volume [139]. Usually, the
sulphate resistance of mortar is not affected by LP content. However, higher cement replacement levels
with LP may cause earlier failure due to sulphate attack [148,149]. Torres et al. [155] have expressed
their concern for exposure to low-temperature and marine environments. They observed that the
mortar samples with 5%–35% LP underwent higher deterioration than the control mortar samples with
100% OPC when stored in 1.8% MgSO4 solution for 5 years. The extent of deterioration increases with
the content of LP. The mortar samples with 5% LP took 5 years to have higher deterioration than the
samples with 15% LP had after 1 year [155]. Moreover, together with white Portland cement, 31.9% LP
caused a hike in carbonation depth; after 7 days of exposure to 1% (v/v) CO2 at 20 ◦ C and 57% relative
humidity, there was a measurable degree of carbonation; the carbonation rate was 0.85 mm/d1/2 while
it was only 0.17 mm/d1/2 for the samples without LP, up to 280 days of exposure [58].
5.6. Metakaolin (MK)

A significant increase in viscosity and a decrease in flowability are associated with the incorporation
of MK [65]. The mean diameter (D50 ) of MK particles is approximately three times smaller than that of
cement. The higher specific surface area or surface fineness and smaller particle size of MK have an
adverse effect on the flowability of mortar mixture [64]. The calcination method has a second-order
influence on the shape of particles; the smaller particles can have smoother surface through the flash
calcination process [65]. In mortar, 42% reduction in fluidity was observed with 25% MK [64]. In
addition, MK incorporation reduces segregation in mortar. In a recent study, 15% MK enabled to raise
the w/c ratio from 0.35 to 0.41 at a segregation index of 20% [64].

The partial replacement of cement with MK improves the strength properties of mortar, showing
more prominent influence at a lower w/c ratio [64]. The mortar prepared with a w/b ratio of 0.17 and
10% MK achieved the highest compressive strength; the compressive strength of the plain mortar
(unreinforced mortar) with 10% MK was above 80 MPa at 28 days. In the presence of MK, the flexural
strength followed the same trend for the reinforced mortar but dropped for the unreinforced mortar.
MK promotes homogeneous dispersion and enhances the bonding of steel fibers in cementitious matrix,
thus improving the flexural strength of reinforced mortar [66]. The flexural and impact strengths
rise with the MK content up to 15%; however, 10% MK maximizes the enhancement, which is about
34% [141,142]. In another study, the mortar made with a w/b ratio of 0.30 and 20% MK gained 120 MPa
compressive strength at 28 days, which was 21% higher than the strength of the control mortar [67].
Furthermore, the mortar produced with a w/b ratio of 0.485 and 10% MK provided the same strength
as the control mortar at 28 days and 10% more strength at 300 days [43].
When used together, MK virtually eliminates the chemical retardation effect of ZnO, which enables
the waste materials containing ZnO (e.g., electric arc furnace dust) to be used in cement-based materials.
The MK-ZnO combination containing 1% ZnO calcined at 650 ◦ C had 23% improvement in compressive
strength. The strength increased with the calcining temperature in the range of 500–650 ◦ C; at the
calcined temperatures of 600 ◦ C and 650 ◦ C, both the mortars with and without ZnO achieved a higher
strength than the OPC mortar [144].
MK nanoparticles (Blaine fineness of 48 m2 /g and average dimensions of 100 × 50 × 10 nm) have
both the filler and pozzolanic effects, which enhance the strength of mortar. On the other hand, at
higher contents, they reduce the C3 S and β-C2 S phases in blended cement and agglomerate around the
OPC grains, hindering the hydration of cement. As a result of these opposing effects, the compressive
strength increases with the increasing replacement of cement up to 5%, then it decreases with any
additional amount of nano-MK; 23% higher compressive strength was attained for 5% nano-MK [145].

The incorporation of MK forms a larger fraction of the pores that are connected to the external
surface through smaller neck entrances; thus, a drop in resistance against carbonation occurs in the
mortar which contains MK [58]. The mortar with 31.9% MK in a dual combination with white Portland
cement suffered a measurable level of carbonation at 7 days for exposure to 1% (v/v) CO2 at 20 ◦ C
and 57% relative humidity. After 280 days, the carbonation coefficient was 0.61 mm/d1/2 , while it was
only 0.17 mm/d1/2 for the mortar sample without MK [58]. The use of 10% MK reduced the water
absorption value from 4.2% to < 3%, which is the maximum limit specified for “good” quality of
cement-based materials according to CEB-FIP [43,170]. MK raises the resistance of mortar against
sulphate attack; in the mortar containing MK, ettringite is only formed inside instead of both inside
and outside of the pores [43]. The mortar with only 10% MK can survive the sulphate exposure beyond
300 days [43,148]. The mortar samples with 10%–20% MK suffered an expansion rate which was
only half of that of the control mortar samples after exposure to 50 and 150 g/l Na2 SO4 solution for
180 days. Even in 150 g/l solution, the mortar samples containing 15%–20% MK had less than 0.1%
expansion after 180 days [156]. The mortar samples incorporating 18% MK and 4%–10% LP sustained
540 days of exposure in sulphate solution at 5 ◦ C [148]. At normal temperature, MK increases the
chloride ion penetration resistance of mortar; 10% MK caused 65% reduction in the charge passed; the
chloride ion penetration values of the mortar samples containing 10% MK were 1000–2000 coulombs,
specified as “low chloride ion penetrability” in accordance with ASTM C1202 [43,168]. Mlinarik and
Kopecskó [151] also have reported similar improvement. However, MK affects adversely the chloride
ion penetration resistance if the temperature is above 400 ◦ C because the denser hydration product
of MK mortar suffers more due to internal cracking caused by evaporable water; at 600 ◦ C, 20% MK
turned “moderate” chloride ion penetrability into “high” [67,168]. The partial replacement of cement
by MK results in a drop of alkali that comes from the cement content of mortar mixture and thus
reduces the possibility of ASR [156]. In addition, by pozzolanic reaction, MK lowers the permeability
of the matrix and causes a drop in the pH of pore solution. For these reasons, MK improves the ASR
resistance of mortar. The MK content of 15%–20% kept the mortar expansion below 0.1%, which is
considered the maximum safe limit [156]. Although the application of MK was found very effective
in the case of sulphuric acid attack, it could not perform well against acetic acid. The mortar with
10% MK had a drop in mass loss from 9% to below 1% after 390 days of exposure to the sulphuric
acid of pH value 1. When it was exposed to the acetic acid of pH value 3 for 390 days, the loss in
mass was almost 50% for 0%–17% MK [151]. In addition, 10% MK improves the resistance of mortar
against freezing and thawing. After 300 cycles, the loss in compressive strength and mass was 11%
and 0.7%, respectively, for the mortar with 10% MK, while these losses were 26% and 1.36% for the
OPC mortar [43]. The shrinkage reduction at later ages (56 days) was also remarkably improved due
to the partial cement replacement by MK [64].
The mortar samples containing MK continuously lose compressive strength with increased
temperature; at 200 ◦ C, 400 ◦ C, 600 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C, as much as 9%, 15%, 35%, and 79% strength loss
occurred, respectively; the mortar with 20% MK had more strength than the control mortar after
exposure to the higher temperature up to 800 ◦ C; the MK mortar samples retained 80% of the unheated
strength only up to 400 ◦ C; therefore, MK mortar should be used carefully for the structures with a
risk of being exposed to a temperature of 400 ◦ C and above, [67]. The nanoparticles of MK affect the
strength of mortar differently. At high temperatures (up to 800 ◦ C), the higher (5%–15%) the nano-MK
content, the better is the strength. The exposure to 250 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C for 2 h resulted in a rise of 36.6%
and a drop of 46.5% strength, respectively, for the mortar with 15% nano-MK, while the respective
values were 28.4% and 57% for the OPC mortar [145].
5.7. Volcanic Ash (VA)

The effects of cement replacement by VA on the flowability of mortar mixture have not been
discussed in any of the recently published works. Existing literature on the fresh properties of
the mortar with VA only discussed the setting time of mortar. Replacing cement with VA has a
retarding effect on the initial and final setting times of mortar at normal temperature (23 ± 3 ◦ C) but an
accelerating effect at a higher temperature [60,68,71]. Accelerated initial setting time is expected to
cause a significant loss of the flowability of mortar mixture.

In most of the studies, the mortar strength decreased with an increase in its VA content; the
28-day compressive strength dropped by 17%–32% for 20%–25% VA, with a particle size in the range of
20.0–21.7 µm [68–71]. After 90 days curing, the mortar with 20% VA achieved higher strength than the
control mortar; the compressive strength of 40–42 MPa was reported for the mortar with VA compared
to the control mortar strength of 34–40 MPa [60,69]. Finer particles and higher curing temperature
showed significant improvements in the performance of VA mortar. The mortar samples with 20%
VA of 320 m2 /kg Blaine fineness achieved 10% higher compressive strength than the control mortar
samples (100% OPC) at 28 days, when the curing temperature was 20 ◦ C. This effect was further
enhanced with increased curing time and temperature. After 90 days curing at 60 ◦ C, the mortars
with 10%–30% VA obtained 33.1–33.4 MPa, compared to the 28.8 MPa compressive strength of OPC
mortar [60]. For a rise in VA content up to 40%, the total heat of hydration falls from 50.6 kJ/kg to
35.0 kJ/kg, which makes the use of VA more desirable where thermal cracking is a major concern [68].

With the increased content of VA, the total pore volume and electrical resistivity of mortar rise and
its chloride ingress falls; for 40% VA, the chloride concentration is 0 beyond 25 mm depth after 7 days
curing, which is 45 mm for the control mortar; after 120 days curing, the chloride diffusion coefficient
is higher in the mortar without any VA than in the mortars containing 20%–40% VA; in corrosion
resistance test, the mortar samples with 20%–40% VA remained passive for 6 to 7 weeks compared
to only 2 weeks for the mortar samples without VA; in corrosive environment, the mortar samples
with 40% VA had only 0.12% mass loss and 5.1% corroded area after 365 days curing, while the
respective values were 0.61% and 9.1% for the control mortar samples [70]. In addition, 25% VA kept
the expansion due to ASR close to 0.05% after 14 days; this expansion was above 0.40% for the control
mortar [69].
5.8. Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)

The use of unground POFA decreases the flowability of mortar mixture; 30% unground POFA
needed more than double SP dosage to get a flowability which is close to that of the control mixture [111].
The grinding of POFA can compensate for its negative impact on the mortar flowability. The overall
porosity of POFA particles becomes lower if they are ground to smaller sizes [77]. This means the
absorption of water by POFA particles will be lower during the mixing process of mortar and thus
more water will be available for its better flow. Also, smaller POFA particles will experience greater
Brownian motion [120] and therefore they will enhance the mortar flowability. It was observed in an
earlier study that the mortar with ground POFA can reach a very close flowability of the control mixture
without any extra SP dosage [76]. The incorporation of equal amounts of POFA and pulverized burnt
clay in a mortar mixture increases the saturation dosage of water-reducing admixture. In this case, the
advantage of using POFA becomes more pronounced at higher w/b ratios. The mortar mixture with
10% POFA and pulverized burnt clay (5% each) together had the best performance for the w/b ratios of
0.30–0.40; the highest flow spread (310 mm) was achieved for 10% cement replacement at 0.35 w/b
ratio with 2%–2.25% water-reducing admixture [72].

POFA contributes to increase the strength in two ways, as a filler and through the pozzolanic effect.
Again, the dilution effect counteracts the former effect. The ultimate effect of POFA on strength highly
depends on its particle size, replacement level, and treatment process. Usually, the smaller particles
produce higher strength because of greater reactivity and better micro-filling capability [77]. POFA
of 82 µm median particle size and 25.5 m2 /g BET fineness had an adverse effect on the compressive
strength of mortar at all ages and the strength decreased with the higher replacement level; the use of
20% POFA decreased the 28-day compressive strength by 22% [111]. The mortar incorporating POFA
of 32 µm median particle size and 0.357 m2 /g BET fineness reached the compressive strength of the
control mortar (100% OPC) at 28 days for 10% replacement; any further increase in POFA content
resulted in a lower strength [76]. The positive influence of POFA was found for the particle size of
12.3 µm and Blaine fineness of 12,285 cm2 /g. For the mortars containing such POFA, the relative
compressive strength was 100.5%–105.5% of the strength of OPC mortar at all ages for 10%–30%
contents. Even the mortar including 40% such POFA provided 3.8% more strength than the control
mortar at 90 days [77]. The heat treatment followed by grinding significantly improves the strength
performance of POFA [74]. Heating POFA at 500 ◦ C for 1 h and grinding until it reaches the median
size less than 1 µm resulted in 146% more fineness than OPC. After this treatment, ultrafine POFA
reached the strength activity index of 105% at 28 days [74]. The heat treated POFA (ultrafine POFA)
significantly improves the compressive strength of mortar, even at a very high replacement level of
cement. The mortar containing 80% ultrafine POFA gained more strength than the control mortar with
100% OPC at all ages, as evident from Figure 5; at 28 days, it reached a compressive strength above
45 MPa for 0.40 w/b ratio, which is far more than the strength of the control mortar [74]. In contrast,
ground POFA obtained after drying at 105 ◦ C for 24 h and then grinding to 90% passing through 45-µm
sieve is not effective like ultrafine POFA in improving the compressive strength of mortar, particularly
at a very high replacement level of cement, as can be seen from Figure 5; the mortar with 80% ground
POFA provided lower
Sustainability compressive
2020, 12, strength than the control mortar with 100% OPC. 23 of 36
x FOR PEER REVIEW
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Effect ofEffect
80%ofPOFA
80% POFA (before
(before andand aftertreatment)
after treatment) onon
thethe
strength development
strength of mortar of
development [74].
mortar [74].
[GPOFA = Ground POFA; UPOFA = Ultrafine POFA].
[GPOFA = Ground POFA; UPOFA = Ultrafine POFA].
The incorporation of POFA may lead to a rise in the water absorption and permeable porosity
of mortar at all ages depending on the particle size distribution of binder. Both water absorption and
permeable porosity increased by more than 50% at 90 days for 30% POFA [111]. The use of 10% POFA
gave a similar permeability as compared with the OPC mortar but higher replacements affected
permeability adversely; 30% POFA increased the permeability of mortar by up to 200% at 28 days
[76]. Furthermore, POFA mortar showed a better resistance against sulphate attack; the expansion
values due to external sulphate attack were 0.046%–0.068% for the POFA mortars whereas the control
mortar had an expansion value of 0.075%; the expansion of mortar samples was reduced by 37% for

The incorporation of POFA may lead to a rise in the water absorption and permeable porosity
of mortar at all ages depending on the particle size distribution of binder. Both water absorption
and permeable porosity increased by more than 50% at 90 days for 30% POFA [111]. The use of 10%
POFA gave a similar permeability as compared with the OPC mortar but higher replacements affected
permeability adversely; 30% POFA increased the permeability of mortar by up to 200% at 28 days [76].
Furthermore, POFA mortar showed a better resistance against sulphate attack; the expansion values
due to external sulphate attack were 0.046%–0.068% for the POFA mortars whereas the control mortar
had an expansion value of 0.075%; the expansion of mortar samples was reduced by 37% for 20%
POFA [157].
The porous texture of POFA can entrap the free water (not considered as adsorbed water, which
causes the disjoining pressure in capillaries); the removal of this moisture from the cement-based
materials containing POFA does not cause shrinkage; besides, the low rate of pozzolanic reaction
decreases the tensile strength that exerts on the walls of capillary pores. For these reasons, 30% POFA
caused 15% less drying shrinkage in the mortar samples at 28 days [76]. Moreover, the total heat of
hydration decreases with an increased amount of POFA [75]. The high volume of POFA can be used in
mortar for the circumstances where the prevention of volume change and thermal cracking due to
extreme thermal stress is required [74,75].
5.9. Rice Husk Ash (RHA)

The porous nature, lower particle size, and higher surface fineness of RHA tend to increase the
water requirement of mortar mixture for its flowability [113]. The flow time of RHA mortar obtained
from the mini V-funnel test increased by 12.5%–37.5% when 5%–20% RHA was used with the same
SP dosage; however, the flow spread was not significantly different from that of the control mortar
including 100% OPC [113] due to the increased paste volume resulting from the lower specific gravity
of RHA (refer to Table 2) that enhanced the dispersion of fine aggregate particles. Self-compacting
mortar can be produced using 5%–30% RHA with high-range water-reducing and viscosity-modifying
admixtures at a relatively low w/b ratio [113,123].

Coarse RHA may decrease the compressive strength of mortar owing to larger and porous
particles. An increase in coarse RHA content from 5% to 20% caused a decrease in strength of 37%
after 90 days, with more influence at early ages [113]. The burning temperature of rice husks and the
particle size of RHA influence the strength performance of RHA mortar. In the study by Antiohos
et al. [79], the lower burning temperature (by approximately 50 ◦ C) resulted in higher amorphous
silica content (by nearly 7%). This extra silica helped to gain more strength at all ages for 10%–30%
RHA. Antiohos et al. [79] reported that the RHA particles with a Blaine fineness of 4000 cm2 /g could
only be considered beneficial for the strength of mortar after 28 days; further grinding to the Blaine
fineness of 7000 cm2 /g improves the performance of RHA substantially [79]. In this study, the RHA that
was burnt at a lower temperature and ground to 7000 cm2 /g exhibited an equivalent strength profile
of CEM-I 42.5 N, up to a replacement level of 10%. Higher replacements produced a slightly lower
strength; at 28 days, 30% RHA provided 48.8 MPa compressive strength, which is 89.4% of the strength
of the control mortar [79]. The second time burning improves the quality of RHA, which can provide
20%–25% higher strength than OPC alone; a secondary heat treatment at 650 ◦ C for 1 h (200 ◦ C per
hour rate of increase) and a subsequent pulverization to a mean grain size of 3.8 µm produce the RHA,
which demonstrates the equivalent compressive strength of OPC at 30% content at all ages; the mortar
with 15% such RHA had the best strength which is 46.7 MPa, compared to the 37 MPa compressive
strength of the control mortar [78]. In another study, rice husks were burnt at 600 ◦ C for 4 h and then at
700 ◦ C for 3 h. The mortar samples containing this RHA as 10%–30% cement substitutions provided
approximately 20% more compressive strength at 28 days [80]. A theoretical model suggests that the
optimum content of RHA without any non-reactive silica is nearly 14.3% for a cementitious system
(e.g., cement mortar) containing ASTM Type I cement [172].

By its pozzolanic and micro-filling effects, RHA increases the nucleation sites and the strength-
contributing hydration product, reducing Ca(OH)2 concentration and porosity. As a result, water
absorption, water permeability, and chloride ion penetration are reduced, and electrical resistivity is
increased with an increase in RHA content. The degree of improvement depends on the replacement
ratio, particle size, and treatment procedure of RHA. Only 10% RHA, which has gone through
a secondary burning, can reduce the rapid chloride penetration (RCP) level from “moderate” to
“very low” [80,168]. The use of 40% RHA resulted in a drop from 7500 Coulombs to only 200 Coulombs
of RCP value at 28 days [90]. Even without a secondary burning, depending on the source, the RHA of
4000 cm2 /g Blaine fineness maintained an RCP level of “low” or “very low” for the RHA mortar just
after 55 days, while the control mortar was in “moderate” range [79]. A similar trend was observed for
electrical resistivity, which showed a strong correlation with RCP. The electrical resistivity of mortar
increased with the incorporation of RHA; 30% RHA provided 12 times more resistivity than the control
mortar [80]. Moreover, the pozzolanic reaction causes a drop in the amount of Ca(OH)2 in mortar and
thus creates denser C–S–H gel. Thus, the inclusion of RHA enhances the resistance of mortar against
acid attack. The mortar made with 10%–30% RHA had significantly better performance when exposed
to nitric and acetic acids, in terms of residual strength, mass loss, and length change. After 90 days of
exposure to nitric or acetic acid, the mortar samples prepared with a w/b ratio of 0.55 and 10% RHA
retained 30–33 MPa compressive strength, which is 67%–72% of the original strength (46 MPa), while
the mortar samples without RHA could retain only 50%–62% of their strength. The mass loss and
length change also followed a similar trend [81]. Moreover, an increase in the resistance of mortar
against sulphate attack was reported in one study [158].
5.10. Waste Glass Powder (WGP)

Since the glass waste residue has a high specific surface area or surface fineness (Blaine fineness of
477 m2 /kg), the partial replacement of cement with WGP increases the water consumption. Thus, an
increasing trend of SP requirement was observed as the percentage of cement replacement increased;
the mortar with 20% WGP consumed as much as 2.7 times SP for the same consistency of the control
mortar with 100% OPC [85]. Because of higher water demand, a mortar including WGP exhibits lower
flowability. The flow spread of the mortar containing 25% WGP was 205 mm, whereas the OPC mortar
had a flow spread of 220 mm [20].

High silica and alumina contents of WGP lead to a good pozzolanic reactivity. Hence, the
compressive strength increases when WGP is used in a cementitious mixture. Parghi and Alam [20]
reported a gain in the compressive strength of cement composite for up to 25% WGP. The use of 25%
WGP provided 30% and 40% more strength at 28 and 90 days, respectively, over the control mortar
without any WGP [20]. Calmon et al. [85] found a different trend for the strength properties of mortar
containing WGP. In their study, after 270 days, the mortar with only 5% WGP provided a compressive
strength which is higher (about 6%) than the strength of the control mortar without any WGP; but
higher substitution led to lower compressive strength; however, up to 20% replacement, every mortar
reached at least 30 MPa compressive strength at the age of 28 days. They stated that the presence of
Al2 O3 and Na2 O at a content higher than the permissible limit (5% and 1.5%, respectively) may cause
the formation of expansive compounds (e.g., delayed ettringite), which may decrease the compressive
strength of mortar [85]. Matos and Sousa-Coutinho [84] also reported inferior compressive strength
values for 10% and 20% WGP at 28 days although both contents provided a strength value (54 MPa)
like that of OPC mortar at 90 days. Conversely, a significant improvement in the tensile bond strength
was observed in the presence of WGP; the mortars with 10% and 20% WGP resulted in 280% and 170%
higher tensile bond strength, respectively, than the control mortar [85].
The particle size distribution plays a significant role in the performance of WGP as a partial
replacement of cement. The lower the particle size, the higher is the reaction rate. WGP possessing
particles in the size range of 0–25 µm shows pozzolanic activity just after 7 days, while 25–38 µm and
63–75 µm size ranges show this activity only after 28 days at 50 ◦ C. A reduction in the particle size
of WGP results in more and denser secondary C–S–H, thus higher strength. When the WGP with
0–25 µm size distribution was used, Ca(OH)2 content was depleted 1.5 and 2.3 times more than the
size ranges of 25–38 µm and 63–75 µm, respectively [173]. According to the activation energy values,
WGP could be classified as a moderately temperature-dependent SCM. The growth in reaction rate
and the reduction in portlandite content as much as 100% and 30%, respectively, were reported at
elevated temperatures compared to low temperatures [115]. The mortar samples containing WGP did
not show any significant pozzolanic reaction at 23 ◦ C even at the age of 91 days. Rather it resulted in
lower strength due to higher effective w/b ratio. The WGP with 0–25 µm size distribution showed 21%
higher reactivity at 50 ◦ C than 10 ◦ C and 23 ◦ C. The mortar including WGP in 63–75 µm size range also
had 30% less portlandite content than the control mortar at 28 and 91 days; however, no pozzolanic
reactivity was observed for this WGP mortar at 23 ◦ C even at 91 days [173]. At a pH level higher than
12.5, green-colored glass liberates more silica and alumina ions than clear glass; therefore, the mortar
containing green WGP achieves higher strength than the control mortar and the mortar including clear
WGP just after 7 days at 50 ◦ C; at this temperature, the mortar including green WGP gained more than
40 MPa compressive strength, which was 30% higher than the strength of the other two mortars [86].

The mortar with 10% WGP showed a much better resistance against sulphate attack compared
with the mortar including an equal amount of SF and the control mortar (100% OPC), showing almost
zero expansion even after 26 weeks; the pozzolanic activity of WGP binds portlandite, which is
released during the hydration of calcium silicates (C2 S and C3 S), making it unavailable for reaction
with sulphates [84,152]. The chloride penetration is also minimized in the presence of WGP. The mortar
with 20% WGP had only 7.8 × 10−12 m2 /s chloride diffusion coefficient whereas the OPC mortar gave a
chloride diffusion coefficient of 16.2 × 10−12 m2 /s [84]. In contrast, WGP is not effective in reducing
the permeation of CO2 into mortar; the mortar containing WGP had a larger carbonation depth than
the control mortar; however, it was significantly lower than that of SF mortar for 10% replacement of
cement after 2 months water curing at 20 ◦ C followed by 4 months exposure to 5 ± 0.1% CO2 in an
accelerated carbonation chamber [84].
WGP is better able to fill in the pores by denser hydration products at later ages at elevated
temperatures because of its slower reactivity than cement; hence, the mortar samples with WGP
possessed less porosity than the control samples at later ages at 50 ◦ C and therefore they exhibited lower
water absorptivity [115]. With higher pozzolanic reactivity, green WGP decreased water absorption
more than clear WGP [86]. The water absorption depth of the mortar incorporating green WGP in
the size range of 0–25 µm was less than 1 mm at 91 days and 50 ◦ C, whereas it was above 1.5 mm
for the control mortar [86]. In another study, the capillary water absorption of the mortar with 15%
WGP was 33% lower than that of OPC mortar, where 98% of the WGP particles was under 75 µm
in size [85]. Moreover, the reactive silica from WGP dissolves during the pozzolanic reaction and
forms the mineral phases of cementitious compounds. Therefore, the reactive silica of WGP will be
unavailable for ASR at later ages [118]. Thus, an increased WGP content decreases ASR expansion,
despite its considerable alkali content; the mortar samples with 10% WGP showed ASR expansion
less than that of the OPC mortar samples but still failed to reach the recommended safe level [84,152];
however, 20% WGP dropped the expansion to 0.041% [84], which is much lower than the critical level
of 0.1% given in ASTM C1567 [169]. These findings suggest that, to avoid ASR, the quantity of WGP
should be optimized to use up all reactive silica and moisture during the pozzolanic reaction with
Ca(OH)2 . Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the increased amount of WGP may increase the
drying shrinkage of mortar; the greater the substitution level of OPC by WGP, the higher is the drying
shrinkage value of mortar; at 63 days, the drying shrinkage value of the mortar including 20% WGP
was 16% higher than that of the control mortar [85].
6. Contributions of SCMs and Structural Mortar to Sustainable Construction

The goal of sustainable development in the built environment is to minimize the consumption
of natural resources and to minimize waste generation. SCMs provide construction practitioners
the liberty to prepare structural mortar with less cement, which can be used as concrete repair
material, rendering material in retrofitting works, and equivalent concrete mortar for designing high
performance concrete. An effective repair or retrofitting system can elevate the structural condition
consuming fewer natural resources and generating almost zero waste compared to demolition and
reconstruction. Besides, the utilization of by-products or wastes in cementitious mixture prevents their
disposal in nature and decreases the depletion of natural clinker and fossil fuel to produce cement,
resulting in a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, thus contributing
to environmental sustainability. Most of the SCMs have much lower carbon footprint compared to
OPC. For instance, OPC, FA, GGBS, and LP release greenhouse gases equivalent to 860, 0.1, 79.6, and
8 kg CO2 per ton, respectively [174]. The carbon footprints of the cement blends using these SCMs at a
proportion recommended in BS 8500-1 are given in Table 6. This table shows that, although FA has the
lowest carbon footprint, GGBS makes the cement blend with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, as
it is allowed for use up to 80% [175]. Reducing resource consumption and waste generation as well as
preventing hazardous chemical disposal in nature, structural mortar made with SCM can take one step
forward to sustainable construction.
Table 6. Greenhouse gas generation (as equivalent CO2 ) by the factory-made cement types [174].
Cement Designation [175] SCM Content Equivalent CO2 (kg/ton)

CEM I 0% 860
CEM II/A-LL or L 6%–20% LP 842–721
CEM II/A-V 6%–20% FA 825–686
CEM II/B-V 21%–35% FA 694–555
CEM II/B-S 21%–35% GGBS 712–585
CEM III/A 36%–65% GGBS 594–350
CEM III/B 66%–80% GGBS 359–232
CEM IV/B-V 36%–55% FA 564–381
7. Research Gaps and Recommendations

The research gaps that have been identified based on the comprehensive review conducted by
the authors of the present study are given below. Along with the research gaps, several specific
recommendations are also given for further research.
• Some treatments (e.g., controlled burning and/or grinding) substantially improve SCM properties.
The effects of such treatment processes on most SCMs were not studied thoroughly. The optimum
treatment process needs to be determined for each SCM, especially for those obtained from
agricultural sources.
• Different researchers experimented in different conditions for very specific purposes. Comparing
SCMs for use in construction is difficult based on these situation-dependent data. The detailed
characterization of each widely available SCM should be accomplished.
• Studies on how the behavior of SCM changes with its source and application conditions are still
inadequate. The behavior of SCM incorporated mortars in every real-life situation (e.g., frost, high
temperature, impact loading, exposure to seawater, etc.) should be determined.
• The effects of VA on the flowability of mortar mixture and its resistance against carbonation, acid
attack, sulphate attack, and freezing and thawing are unknown. Therefore, broad research should
be carried out to study these properties of VA mortar.
• The durability performance of BA mortar needs to be investigated thoroughly. Especially, the
ASR resistance of BA mortar is very important, as some studies reported the signs of ASR due to
the high concentration of K+ ions released from BA.
• RHA mortar should be investigated for its resistance against carbonation, ASR, sulphate attack,
and freezing and thawing.
• The applications of POFA and GGBS as an SCM in mortar should be explored by examining their
resistance against carbonation, acid attack, ASR, and freezing and thawing. Especially, the high
content of K2 O in POFA raises a concern about ASR.
• The behavior in acidic and freeze-thaw environments are still unexplored for the mortars
containing LP and WGP. In addition, the influence of LP on ASR and chloride penetration needs
broad investigation.
• The resistance of FA mortar against carbonation and acid attack needs to be examined
systematically.
• Studies on the use of SCMs in structural mortar at different multilevel combinations, such as
binary and ternary levels, were not performed meticulously.
• Dependable analytical models for predicting the effects of SCM on the mortar-performance are
absent. Such models should be established considering all influencing parameters to predict the
consequences of SCM inclusion.
• The carbon footprints of the mortars made with blended cement types, including various SCMs
need to be determined.
• To ensure sustainable development, the total impact of the SCM incorporated structural mortar
on the environment and economy should be quantified in a holistic manner, considering the
treatment process, replacement level, and durability.
• To avoid contamination, the leaching of heavy metals from the cementitious products containing
SCM should be quantified before any industrial application.
8. Concluding Remarks
Like all other industries, the construction industry is also looking for eco-friendly strategies.
Cement is one of the main ingredients of construction. The production of cement is an energy- and
carbon-intensive process. Many industrial by-products, several materials obtained from agricultural
and municipal wastes, and some materials found from natural sources have shown promising
performance as SCMs, when used as a partial replacement of cement in structural mortar. In many
cases, the use of such by-products or wastes supersedes the sole performance of cement. Furthermore,
such utilization can reduce the consumption of natural resources and the production cost in cement
factories, as well as ensure the proper management of by-products or wastes. However, effective
utilization of SCMs demands more intensive studies. A holistic study of SCM properties and
their effects on the end products under different conditions is required for efficient environmental
management, as well as to further optimize the desired engineering performance of structural mortar
for sustainable construction.
Author Contributions: S.N.R., A.B.M.A.K. and S.S. designed the research program. The data collection, assessment,
and analysis were performed by S.S. under the guidance and supervision of S.N.R., A.B.M.A.K. and A.A.M. M.S.
significantly assisted in the analysis of research findings to facilitate the present study. The manuscript was written
by S.S. and S.N.R. and was supplemented by the contributions of M.S., A.B.M.A.K. and A.A.M. M.S. critically
reviewed the paper and provided valuable technical inputs to improve its overall quality. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia through the Fundamental
Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2019/TK01/UKM/02/2).
Acknowledgments: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Halada, K. Progress of ecomaterials toward a sustainable society. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2003, 7,
209–216. [CrossRef]
2. CEMBUREAU (The European Cement Association). Activity Report 2015; The European Cement Association:
Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
3. Tamanna, K.; Raman, S.N.; Jamil, M.; Hamid, R. Utilization of wood waste ash in construction technology:
A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 237, 117654. [CrossRef]
4. Khan, M.N.N.; Jamil, M.; Karim, M.R.; Zain, M.F.M.; Kaish, A.B.M.A. Filler effect of pozzolanic materials on
the strength and microstructure development of mortar. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 274–284. [CrossRef]
5. Celik, K.; Jackson, M.D.; Mancio, M.; Meral, C.; Emwas, A.H.; Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J.M. High-volume
natural volcanic pozzolan and limestone powder as partial replacements for portland cement in
self-compacting and sustainable concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 45, 136–147. [CrossRef]
6. CEMBUREAU. Cement 101: Key Facts & Figures. Available online: https://cembureau.eu/cement-101/key-
facts-figures/ (accessed on 29 July 2017).
7. Shubbar, A.A.; Jafer, H.; Abdulredha, M.; Al-khafaji, Z.S.; Nasr, M.S.; Al Masoodi, Z.; Sadique, M. Properties
of cement mortar incorporated high volume fraction of GGBFS and CKD from 1 day to 550 days. J. Build.
Eng. 2020, 30, 101327. [CrossRef]
8. Teixeira, E.R.; Mateus, R.; Camões, A.; Branco, F.G. Quality and durability properties and life-cycle assessment
of high volume biomass fly ash mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 195–207. [CrossRef]
9. WBCSD-CSI (World Business Council for Sustainable Development–Cement Sustainability Initiative. CO2 and
Climate Protection. Available online: http://www.wbcsdcement.org/index.php/key-issues/climate-protection
(accessed on 31 March 2017).
10. Tosti, L.; van Zomeren, A.; Pels, J.R.; Comans, R.N.J. Technical and environmental performance of lower
carbon footprint cement mortars containing biomass fly ash as a secondary cementitious material. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 134, 25–33. [CrossRef]
11. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Adoption of the Paris Agreement,
FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. In Proceedings of the Conference Parties on Its Twenty First Session, Paris, France,
30 November–11 December 2015.
12. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Paris Agreement—Status of
Ratification. Available online: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php (accessed on 5 July 2017).
13. ASTM C219-14a. Standard Terminology Relating to Hydraulic Cement; ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2014.
14. Papayianni, I.; Karaveziroglou, M.; Athanassiou, F.; Georgisoudi, K.; Revithiadou, K. Mortars used for
intervention in archaeological site of Ancient Olynthos. Trans. Built Environ. 1995, 15, 223–230.
15. ASTM C270-14a. Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry; ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2014.
16. EN 1504-3. Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures- Definitions,
requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. In Part 3: Structural and Non-Structural
Repair; CEN (European Committee for Standardization): Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
17. FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). Materials for concrete repair. In Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction; FDOT: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2017; Section 930; pp. 1069–1075.
18. ACI 549.1R-93. Guide for the Design, Construction and Repair of Ferrocement; American Concrete Institute (ACI):
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1993.
19. Rao, S.; Silva, P.; de Brito, J. Experimental study of the mechanical properties and durability of self-compacting
mortars with nano materials (SiO2 and TiO2 ). Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 508–517. [CrossRef]
20. Parghi, A.; Alam, M.S. Physical and mechanical properties of cementitious composites containing recycled
glass powder (RGP) and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR). Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 34–43. [CrossRef]
21. Sigvardsen, N.M.; Ottosen, L.M. Characterization of coal bio ash from wood pellets and low-alkali coal fly
ash and use as partial cement replacement in mortar. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 95, 25–32. [CrossRef]
22. Hsu, S.; Chi, M.; Huang, R. Effect of fineness and replacement ratio of ground fly ash on properties of blended
cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 176, 250–258. [CrossRef]
23. Wongkeo, W.; Thongsanitgarn, P.; Ngamjarurojana, A.; Chaipanich, A. Compressive strength and chloride
resistance of self-compacting concrete containing high level fly ash and silica fume. Mater. Des. 2014, 64,
24. Supit, S.W.M.; Shaikh, F.U.A.; Sarker, P.K. Effect of ultrafine fly ash on mechanical properties of high volume
fly ash mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 278–286. [CrossRef]
25. Antoni; Chandra, L.; Hardjito, D. The impact of using fly ash, silica fume and calcium carbonate on the
workability and compressive strength of mortar. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 773–779. [CrossRef]
26. Turk, K. Viscosity and hardened properties of self-compacting mortars with binary and ternary cementitious
blends of fly ash and silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 37, 326–334. [CrossRef]
27. Lee, N.K.; Jang, J.G.; Lee, H.K. Shrinkage characteristics of alkali-activated fly ash/slag paste and mortar at
early ages. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 53, 239–248. [CrossRef]
28. Soriano, L.; Payá, J.; Monzó, J.; Borrachero, M.V.; Tashima, M.M. High strength mortars using ordinary
Portland cement–fly ash–fluid catalytic cracking catalyst residue ternary system (OPC/FA/FCC). Constr.
Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 228–235. [CrossRef]
29. Arenas-Piedrahita, J.C.; Montes-García, P.; Mendoza-Rangel, J.M.; López Calvo, H.Z.; Valdez-Tamez, P.L.;
Martínez-Reyes, J. Mechanical and durability properties of mortars prepared with untreated sugarcane
bagasse ash and untreated fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 105, 69–81. [CrossRef]
30. Kondraivendhan, B.; Bhattacharjee, B. Flow behavior and strength for fly ash blended cement paste and
mortar. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 4, 270–277. [CrossRef]
31. Cheng, A. Effect of incinerator bottom ash properties on mechanical and pore size of blended cement mortars.
Mater. Des. 2012, 36, 859–864. [CrossRef]
32. Oruji, S.; Brake, N.A.; Nalluri, L.; Guduru, R.K. Strength activity and microstructure of blended ultra-fine
coal bottom ash-cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 317–326. [CrossRef]
33. Rosales, J.; Cabrera, M.; Beltrán, M.G.; López, M.; Agrela, F. Effects of treatments on biomass bottom ash
applied to the manufacture of cement mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 154, 424–435. [CrossRef]
34. Menéndez, E.; Álvaro, A.M.; Hernández, M.T.; Parra, J.L. New methodology for assessing the environmental
burden of cement mortars with partial replacement of coal bottom ash and fly ash. J. Environ. Manag. 2014,
133, 275–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Maschio, S.; Tonello, G.; Piani, L.; Furlani, E. Fly and bottom ashes from biomass combustion as cement
replacing components in mortars production: Rheological behaviour of the pastes and materials compression
strength. Chemosphere 2011, 85, 666–671. [CrossRef]
36. Jang, J.G.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, H.K.; Lee, H.K. Resistance of coal bottom ash mortar against the coupled
deterioration of carbonation and chloride penetration. Mater. Des. 2016, 93, 160–167. [CrossRef]
37. Kim, H.K. Utilization of sieved and ground coal bottom ash powders as a coarse binder in high-strength
mortar to improve workability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 57–64. [CrossRef]
38. Sumesh, M.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Mo, K.H. Microstructural and strength characteristics of
high-strength mortar using nontraditional supplementary cementitious materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019,
31, 04019017. [CrossRef]
39. Hot, J.; Cyr, M.; Augeard, E.; Eekhout, M. An investigation of CaSi silica fume characteristics and its
possible utilization in cement-based and alkali-activated materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 456–465.
[CrossRef]
40. Dawood, E.T.; Ramli, M. Development of high strength flowable mortar with hybrid fiber. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2010, 24, 1043–1050. [CrossRef]
41. Senhadji, Y.; Escadeillas, G.; Mouli, M.; Khelafi, H. Benosman Influence of natural pozzolan, silica fume and
limestone fine on strength, acid resistance and microstructure of mortar. Powder Technol. 2014, 254, 314–323.
[CrossRef]
42. Qing, Y.; Zenan, Z.; Deyu, K.; Rongshen, C. Influence of nano-SiO2 addition on properties of hardened
cement paste as compared with silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 539–545. [CrossRef]
43. Mardani-Aghabaglou, A.; İnan Sezer, G.; Ramyar, K. Comparison of fly ash, silica fume and metakaolin from
mechanical properties and durability performance of mortar mixtures viewpoints. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014,
70, 17–25. [CrossRef]
44. Rossen, J.E.; Lothenbach, B.; Scrivener, K.L. Composition of C-S-H in pastes with increasing levels of silica
fume addition. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 75, 14–22. [CrossRef]
45. Liu, J.; Li, Y.; Ouyang, P.; Yang, Y. Hydration of the silica fume-Portland cement binary system at lower
temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 93, 919–925. [CrossRef]
46. İnan Sezer, G. Compressive strength and sulfate resistance of limestone and/or silica fume mortars. Constr.
47. Koksal, F.; Gencel, O.; Kaya, M. Combined effect of silica fume and expanded vermiculite on properties
of lightweight mortars at ambient and elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 88, 175–187.
[CrossRef]
48. Kırca, Ö.; Özgür Yaman, İ.; Tokyay, M. Compressive strength development of calcium aluminate
cement–GGBFS blends. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 35, 163–170. [CrossRef]
49. Kuo, W.T.; Chen, S.H.; Wang, H.Y.; Lin, J.C. A study on the mechanical and electricity properties of cement
mortar added with GGBFS and piezoelectric powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 49, 251–256. [CrossRef]
50. Memon, N.A.; Sumadi, S.R.; Ramli, M. Performance of high workability slag-cement mortar for ferrocement.
Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2710–2717. [CrossRef]
51. Sakir, S.; Kaish, A.B.M.A.; Raman, S.; Mutalib, A. Recent trends in development of self-flowing mortar
incorporating supplementary cementitious materials. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Electronic
Conference on Materials, 2–16 May 2016; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 2, p. 001.
52. Lomboy, G.; Sundararajan, S.; Wang, K.; Subramaniam, S. A test method for determining adhesion forces
and Hamaker constants of cementitious materials using atomic force microscopy. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41,
1157–1166. [CrossRef]
53. Onn, C.C.; Mo, K.H.; Radwan, M.K.H.; Liew, W.H.; Ng, C.G.; Yusof, S. Strength, carbon footprint and cost
considerations of mortar blends with high volume ground granulated blast furnace slag. Sustainability 2019,
11, 7194. [CrossRef]
54. Shubbar, A.A.; Al-Shaer, A.; AlKizwini, R.S.; Hashim, K.; Hawesah, H.A.; Sadique, M. Investigating the
influence of cement replacement by high volume of GGBS and PFA on the mechanical performance of
cement mortar. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering
Technologies, Najaf, Iraq, 23–24 April 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 584, p. 012022.
55. Benabed, B.; Kadri, E.H.; Azzouz, L.; Kenai, S. Properties of self-compacting mortar made with various types
of sand. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 1167–1173. [CrossRef]
56. Silva, P.R.D.; de Brito, J. Fresh-state properties of self-compacting mortar and concrete with combined use of
limestone filler and fly ash. Mater. Res. 2015, 18, 1097–1108. [CrossRef]
57. Rizwan, S.A.; Bier, T.A. Blends of limestone powder and fly-ash enhance the response of self-compacting
mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 398–403. [CrossRef]
58. Shi, Z.; Lothenbach, B.; Geiker, M.R.; Kaufmann, J.; Leemann, A.; Ferreiro, S.; Skibsted, J. Experimental
studies and thermodynamic modeling of the carbonation of Portland cement, metakaolin and limestone
mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 88, 60–72. [CrossRef]
59. Makhloufi, Z.; Chettih, M.; Bederina, M.; Kadri, E.L.H.; Bouhicha, M. Effect of quaternary cementitious
systems containing limestone, blast furnace slag and natural pozzolan on mechanical behavior of limestone
mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 95, 647–657. [CrossRef]
60. Ezziane, K.; Kadri, E.-H.H.; Bougara, A.; Bennacer, R. Analysis of mortar long-term strength with
supplementary cementitious materials cured at different temperatures. ACI Mater. J. 2010, 107, 323–331.
61. Deboucha, W.; Leklou, N.; Khelidj, A.; Plé, O.; Alengaram, U.J. Combination effect of limestone filler and
slag on delayed ettringite formation in heat-cured mortar. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04019365. [CrossRef]
62. Celik, K.; Hay, R.; Hargis, C.W.; Moon, J. Effect of volcanic ash pozzolan or limestone replacement on
hydration of Portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 803–812. [CrossRef]
63. Vejmelková, E.; Pavlíková, M.; Keppert, M.; Keršner, Z.; Rovnaníková, P.; Ondráček, M.; Sedlmajer, M.;
Černý, R. High performance concrete with Czech metakaolin: Experimental analysis of strength, toughness
and durability characteristics. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 1404–1411. [CrossRef]
64. Mehdipour, I.; Vahdani, M.; Amini, K.; Shekarchi, M. Linking stability characteristics to material performance
of self-consolidating concrete-equivalent-mortar incorporating fly ash and metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater.
2016, 105, 206–217. [CrossRef]
65. Cassagnabère, F.; Diederich, P.; Mouret, M.; Escadeillas, G.; Lachemi, M. Impact of metakaolin characteristics
on the rheological properties of mortar in the fresh state. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 37, 95–107. [CrossRef]
66. Jiang, G.; Rong, Z.; Sun, W. Effects of metakaolin on mechanical properties, pore structure and hydration
heat of mortars at 0.17 w/b ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 93, 564–572. [CrossRef]
67. Nadeem, A.; Memon, S.A.; Lo, T.Y. Mechanical performance, durability, qualitative and quantitative analysis
of microstructure of fly ash and Metakaolin mortar at elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38,
68. Al-Fadala, S.; Chakkamalayath, J.; Al-Bahar, S.; Al-Aibani, A.; Ahmed, S. Significance of performance based
specifications in the qualification and characterization of blended cement using volcanic ash. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2017, 144, 532–540. [CrossRef]
69. Diaz-Loya, I.; Juenger, M.; Seraj, S.; Minkara, R. Extending supplementary cementitious material resources:
Reclaimed and remediated fly ash and natural pozzolans. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 101, 44–51. [CrossRef]
70. Hossain, K.M.A.; Lachemi, M. Corrosion resistance and chloride diffusivity of volcanic ash blended cement
mortar. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 695–702. [CrossRef]
71. Hossain, K.M.A. Blended cement using volcanic ash and pumice. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1601–1605.
[CrossRef]
72. Hassan, I.O.; Ismail, M.; Forouzani, P.; Majid, Z.A.; Mirza, J. Flow characteristics of ternary blended
self-consolidating cement mortars incorporating palm oil fuel ash and pulverised burnt clay. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 64, 253–260. [CrossRef]
73. Bamaga, S.O.; Ismail, M.A.; Majid, Z.A.; Ismail, M.; Hussin, M.W. Evaluation of sulfate resistance of mortar
containing palm oil fuel ash from different sources. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013, 38, 2293–2301. [CrossRef]
74. Lim, N.H.A.S.; Ismail, M.A.; Lee, H.S.; Hussin, M.W.; Sam, A.R.M.; Samadi, M. The effects of high volume
nano palm oil fuel ash on microstructure properties and hydration temperature of mortar. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 93, 29–34. [CrossRef]
75. Chandara, C.; Mohd Azizli, K.A.; Ahmad, Z.A.; Saiyid Hashim, S.F.; Sakai, E. Heat of hydration of blended
cement containing treated ground palm oil fuel ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 78–81. [CrossRef]
76. Farzadnia, N.; Noorvand, H.; Yasin, A.M.; Aziz, F.N. The effect of nano silica on short term drying shrinkage
of POFA cement mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 95, 636–646. [CrossRef]
77. Jaturapitakkul, C.; Tangpagasit, J.; Songmue, S.; Kiattikomol, K. Filler effect and pozzolanic reaction of
ground palm oil fuel ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 4287–4293. [CrossRef]
78. Ganesan, K.; Rajagopal, K.; Thangavel, K. Rice husk ash blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of
replacement for strength and permeability properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1675–1683.
[CrossRef]
79. Antiohos, S.K.; Papadakis, V.G.; Tsimas, S. Rice husk ash (RHA) effectiveness in cement and concrete as a
function of reactive silica and fineness. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 61–62, 20–27. [CrossRef]
80. Zunino, F.; Lopez, M. Decoupling the physical and chemical effects of supplementary cementitious materials
on strength and permeability: A multi-level approach. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 65, 19–28. [CrossRef]
81. Chatveera, B.; Lertwattanaruk, P. Evaluation of nitric and acetic acid resistance of cement mortars containing
high-volume black rice husk ash. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 133, 365–373. [CrossRef]
82. Lim, J.L.G.; Raman, S.N.; Lai, F.-C.; Zain, M.F.M.; Hamid, R. Synthesis of nano cementitious additives from
agricultural wastes for the production of sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1150–1160. [CrossRef]
83. Muthukrishnan, S.; Gupta, S.; Kua, H.W. Application of rice husk biochar and thermally treated low silica
rice husk ash to improve physical properties of cement mortar. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2019, 104, 102376.
[CrossRef]
84. Matos, A.M.; Sousa-Coutinho, J. Durability of mortar using waste glass powder as cement replacement.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 205–215. [CrossRef]
85. Calmon, J.L.; Sauer, A.S.; Vieira, G.L.; Teixeira, J.E.S.L. Effects of windshield waste glass on the properties of
structural repair mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 53, 88–96. [CrossRef]
86. Mirzahosseini, M.; Riding, K.A. Effect of curing temperature and glass type on the pozzolanic reactivity of
glass powder. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 58, 103–111. [CrossRef]
87. Zanwar, A.B.; Patil, Y.D. Enhancement of Sustainable Mortar by Using Fine Glass Powder. In Lecture Notes in
Civil Engineering; Shukla, S.K., Barai, S., Mehta, A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 35, pp. 65–72,
ISBN 9789811374807.
88. Patel, D.; Tiwari, R.P.; Shrivastava, R.; Yadav, R.K. Effective utilization of waste glass powder as the
substitution of cement in making paste and mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 199, 406–415. [CrossRef]
89. Khotbehsara, M.M.; Mohseni, E.; Yazdi, M.A.; Sarker, P.; Ranjbar, M.M. Effect of nano-CuO and fly ash on the
properties of self-compacting mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94, 758–766. [CrossRef]
90. Chindaprasirt, P.; Rukzon, S. Strength and chloride resistance of the blended Portland cement mortar
containing rice husk ash and ground river sand. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 3771–3777. [CrossRef]
91. Scheetz, B.E.; Earle, R. Utilization of fly ash. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 1998, 3, 510–520. [CrossRef]
92. Jow, J.; Dong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ding, S.; Li, Q. Fly Ash-based Technologies and Value-added Products Based on
Materials Science. In Proceedings of the 2015 World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, Nashville, TN, USA,
5–7 May 2015.
93. NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). American Coal Ash Association 2012 Coal Combustion
Product Report. Available online: https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/
gasifipedia/solid-waste-bg (accessed on 22 February 2020).
94. Lima, A.T.; Ottosen, L.M.; Ribeiro, A.B. Assessing fly ash treatment: Remediation and stabilization of heavy
metals. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, 110–115. [CrossRef]
95. Yin, K.; Ahamed, A.; Lisak, G. Environmental perspectives of recycling various combustion ashes in cement
production—A review. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 401–416. [CrossRef]
96. Siriruang, C.; Toochinda, P.; Julnipitawong, P.; Tangtermsirikul, S. CO2 capture using fly ash from coal fired
power plant and applications of CO2 -captured fly ash as a mineral admixture for concrete. J. Environ. Manag.
2016, 170, 70–78. [CrossRef]
97. Beltrán, M.G.; Barbudo, A.; Agrela, F.; Jiménez, J.R.; de Brito, J. Mechanical performance of bedding mortars
made with olive biomass bottom ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 699–707. [CrossRef]
98. Yin, K.; Chan, W.-P.; Dou, X.; Lisak, G.; Chang, V.W.-C. Co-complexation effects during incineration bottom
ash leaching via comparison of measurements and geochemical modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 155–168.
[CrossRef]
99. Ban, C.C.; Ramli, M. The implementation of wood waste ash as a partial cement replacement material in the
production of structural grade concrete and mortar: An overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 669–685.
100. Paris, J.M.; Roessler, J.G.; Ferraro, C.C.; DeFord, H.D.; Townsend, T.G. A review of waste products utilized as
supplements to Portland cement in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 121, 1–18. [CrossRef]
101. Rao, G.A. Investigations on the performance of silica fume-incorporated cement pastes and mortars.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1765–1770. [CrossRef]
102. Zhang, T.; Yu, Q.; Wei, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, P. Preparation of high performance blended cements and reclamation
of iron concentrate from basic oxygen furnace steel slag. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 56, 48–55. [CrossRef]
103. Van Oss, H.G. Iron and Steel Slag. In Mineral Commodity Summaries; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VI,
USA, 2015; pp. 82–83.
104. Zhang, T.; Gao, P.; Gao, P.; Wei, J.; Yu, Q. Effectiveness of novel and traditional methods to incorporate
industrial wastes in cementitious materials—An overview. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 74, 134–143.
[CrossRef]
105. Rashad, A.M. An overview on rheology, mechanical properties and durability of high- volume slag used as a
cement replacement in paste, mortar and concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 187, 89–117. [CrossRef]
106. Willett, J.C.; Neely, P.R. Stone, Crushed [Advance Release]. In 2014 Minerals Yearbook; U.S. Geological Survey:
Leiston, VA, USA, 2016; pp. 71.1–71.24.
107. Elgalhud, A.A.; Dhir, R.K.; Ghataora, G. Limestone addition effects on concrete porosity. Cem. Concr. Compos.
2016, 72, 222–234. [CrossRef]
108. Siddique, R. Effect of volcanic ash on the properties of cement paste and mortar. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2011, 56, 66–70. [CrossRef]
109. Masmoudi, R.; Kupwade-Patil, K.; Bumajdad, A.; Büyüköztürk, O. In situ Raman studies on cement paste
prepared with natural pozzolanic volcanic ash and Ordinary Portland Cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017,
148, 444–454. [CrossRef]
110. Zeyad, A.M.; Megat Johari, M.A.; Tayeh, B.A.; Yusuf, M.O. Pozzolanic reactivity of ultrafine palm oil fuel ash
waste on strength and durability performances of high strength concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 511–522.
[CrossRef]
111. Noorvand, H.; Ali, A.A.A.; Demirboga, R.; Noorvand, H.; Farzadnia, N. Physical and chemical characteristics
of unground palm oil fuel ash cement mortars with nanosilica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 48, 1104–1113.
[CrossRef]
112. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Rice Yearbook; USDA Economic Research Service:
Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
113. Gowda, M.R.; Narasimhan, M.C.; Karisiddappa. Development and study of the strength of self-compacting
mortar mixes using local materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2011, 23, 526–532. [CrossRef]
114. Jani, Y.; Hogland, W. Waste glass in the production of cement and concrete—A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng.
2014, 2, 1767–1775. [CrossRef]
115. Mirzahosseini, M.; Riding, K.A. Effect of combined glass particles on hydration in cementitious systems.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 1–13. [CrossRef]
116. Kim, S.; Hanif, A.; Jang, I. Incorporating liquid crystal display (LCD) glass waste as supplementary cementing
material (SCM) in cement mortars—Rationale based on hydration, durability, and pore characteristics.
Materials 2018, 11, 2538. [CrossRef]
117. ASTM C618-15. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
118. Taha, B.; Nounu, G. Using lithium nitrate and pozzolanic glass powder in concrete as ASR suppressors.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 497–505. [CrossRef]
119. Dodson, V.H. Concrete Admixtures; Springer Science+Business Media: New York City, NY, USA, 1990; ISBN
978-1-4757-4845-1.
120. Roussel, N.; Lemaître, A.; Flatt, R.J.; Coussot, P. Steady state flow of cement suspensions: A micromechanical
state of the art. Cem. Concr. Res. 2010, 40, 77–84. [CrossRef]
121. Lu, G.; Wang, K.; Rudolphi, T.J. Modeling rheological behavior of highly flowable mortar using concepts of
particle and fluid mechanics. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 1–12. [CrossRef]
122. Wang, D.; Shi, C.; Wu, Z.; Xiao, J.; Huang, Z.; Fang, Z. A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part II.
Hydration, microstructure and properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 368–377. [CrossRef]
123. Safiuddin, M.; West, J.S.; Soudki, K.A. Self-Consolidating High Performance Concrete with Rice Husk Ash:
Components, Properties and Mixture Design; VDM Publishing House Ltd.: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2009;
ISBN 978-3-639-14506-9.
124. Shen, L.; Struble, L.; Lange, D. Modeling dynamic segregation of self-consolidating concrete. ACI Mater. J.
2009, 106, 375–380.
125. Flatt, R.J. Dispersion forces in cement suspensions. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 399–408. [CrossRef]
126. Flatt, R.J.; Bowen, P. Electrostatic repulsion between particles in cement suspensions: Domain of validity
of linearized Poisson–Boltzmann equation for nonideal electrolytes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 781–791.
[CrossRef]
127. Maheswaran, S.; Iyer, N.R.; Palani, G.S.; Pandi, R.A.; Dikar, D.D.; Kalaiselvam, S. Effect of high temperature
on the properties of ternary blended cement pastes and mortars. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2015, 122, 775–786.
[CrossRef]
128. Wang, X.Y.; Lee, H.S. Simulation of a temperature rise in concrete incorporating fly ash or slag. Mater. Struct.
2010, 43, 737–754. [CrossRef]
129. Narmluk, M.; Nawa, T. Effect of fly ash on the kinetics of Portland cement hydration at different curing
temperatures. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 579–589. [CrossRef]
130. Lawrence, P.; Cyr, M.; Ringot, E. Mineral admixtures in mortars: Effect of inert materials on short-term
hydration. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1939–1947. [CrossRef]
131. ACI 222R-01. Protection of Metals in Concrete against Corrosion (Reapproved 2010); American Concrete Institute
(ACI): Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
132. Young, J.F. Cement-based materials. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 1998, 3, 505–509. [CrossRef]
133. Kwan, A.K.H.; Li, Y. Effects of fly ash microsphere on rheology, adhesiveness and strength of mortar. Constr.
134. Tudjono, S.; Purwanto Apsari, K.T. Study the effect of adding nano fly ash and nano lime to compressive
strength of mortar. Procedia Eng. 2014, 95, 426–432. [CrossRef]
135. Li, Y.; Kwan, A.K.H. Ternary blending of cement with fly ash microsphere and condensed silica fume to
improve the performance of mortar. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 49, 26–35. [CrossRef]
136. Shannag, M.J.; Mourad, S.M. Flowable high strength cementitious matrices for ferrocement applications.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 933–939. [CrossRef]
137. Sanjuán, M.Á.; Argiz, C.; Gálvez, J.C.; Moragues, A. Effect of silica fume fineness on the improvement of
Portland cement strength performance. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 55–64. [CrossRef]
138. Benabed, B.; Kenai, S.; Azzouz, L.; Kadri, E.H.; Belaidi, A.S.E. Effects of limestone quarry dust content on
rheology and strength of self-compacting mortar. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on
Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues, Prague, Czech Republic, 30 October–2
November 2012; pp. 377–388.
139. Kwan, A.K.H.; McKinley, M. Effects of limestone fines on water film thickness, paste film thickness and
performance of mortar. Powder Technol. 2014, 261, 33–41. [CrossRef]
140. Ramezanianpour, A.M.; Hooton, R.D. A study on hydration, compressive strength, and porosity of
Portland-limestone cement mixes containing SCMs. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 51, 1–13. [CrossRef]
141. Yerramala, A.; Ramachandurdu, C.; Bhaskar Desai, V. Flexural strength of metakaolin ferrocement.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 55, 176–183. [CrossRef]
142. Yerramala, A.; Rama Chandurdu, C.; Bhaskar Desai, V. Impact strength of metakaolin ferrocement.
Mater. Struct. 2014, 49, 5–15. [CrossRef]
143. Kostuch, J.A.; Walter, G.V.; Jones, T.R. High performance concretes containing Metakaolin—A review.
In Proceedings of the Concrete 2000: Economic and Durable Construction through Excellence, Dundee,
Scotland, 7–9 September 1993; pp. 1799–1811.
144. Taylor-Lange, S.C.; Riding, K.A.; Juenger, M.C.G. Increasing the reactivity of metakaolin-cement blends
using zinc oxide. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 835–847. [CrossRef]
145. Morsy, M.S.; Al-Salloum, Y.A.; Abbas, H.; Alsayed, S.H. Behavior of blended cement mortars containing
nano-metakaolin at elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 900–905. [CrossRef]
146. Argiz, C.; Menéndez, E.; Moragues, A. Advances in coal bottom ash use as a new common Portland
cement constituent. In Service Life and Durability of Reinforced Concrete Structures: Selected Papers of the
8th International RILEM PhD Workshop held in Marne-la-Vallée, France, 26–27 September 2016; Andrade, C.,
Gulikers, J., Marie-Victoire, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 17, pp. 43–53, ISBN
978-3-319-90236-4.
147. Yao, Y.; Sun, H. Durability and leaching analysis of a cementitious material composed of high volume coal
combustion byproducts. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 97–103. [CrossRef]
148. Hossack, A.M.; Thomas, M.D.A. Varying fly ash and slag contents in Portland limestone cement mortars
exposed to external sulfates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 78, 333–341. [CrossRef]
149. Hossack, A.M.; Thomas, M.D.A. Evaluation of the effect of tricalcium aluminate content on the severity of
sulfate attack in Portland cement and Portland limestone cement mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 56,
150. Li, L.G.; Zhu, J.; Huang, Z.H.; Kwan, A.K.H.; Li, L.J. Combined effects of micro-silica and nano-silica on
durability of mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 157, 337–347. [CrossRef]
151. Mlinarik, L.; Kopecskó, K. The influence of combined application of two SCMs on the corrosion and acid
attack durability of mortars. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2016, 61, 313–321. [CrossRef]
152. Matos, A.M.; Sousa-Coutinho, J. ASR and sulphate performance of mortar containing industrial waste.
Struct. Concr. 2016, 17, 84–95. [CrossRef]
153. Siddique, R.; Bennacer, R. Use of iron and steel industry by-product (GGBS) in cement paste and mortar.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 69, 29–34. [CrossRef]
154. Hadj-sadok, A.; Kenai, S.; Courard, L.; Darimont, A. Microstructure and durability of mortars modified with
medium active blast furnace slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1018–1025. [CrossRef]
155. Torres, S.M.; Sharp, J.H.; Swamy, R.N.; Lynsdale, C.J.; Huntley, S.A. Long term durability of Portland-limestone
cement mortars exposed to magnesium sulfate attack. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 947–954. [CrossRef]
156. Yazıcı, Ş.; Arel, H.Ş.; Anuk, D. Influences of metakaolin on the durability and mechanical properties of
mortars. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39, 8585–8592. [CrossRef]
157. Bamaga, S.O.; Hussin, M.W.; Ismail, M.A. Palm Oil Fuel Ash: Promising supplementary cementing materials.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 1708–1713. [CrossRef]
158. Chatveera, B.; Lertwattanaruk, P. Evaluation of sulfate resistance of cement mortars containing black rice
husk ash. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1435–1441. [CrossRef]
159. ASTM C1437-15. Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015.
160. Sakir, S.; Raman, S.N.; Kaish, A.B.M.A.; Mutalib, A.A. Self-flowing mortar for ferrocement in strengthening
applications. Perspect. Sci. 2016, 8, 673–676. [CrossRef]
161. Phua, Z.; Giannis, A.; Dong, Z.L.; Lisak, G.; Ng, W.J. Characteristics of incineration ash for sustainable
treatment and reutilization. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 16974–16997. [CrossRef]
162. ASTM C33/C33M—16e1. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates; ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2016.
163. Hunger, M.; Brouwers, H.J.H. Flow analysis of water-powder mixtures: Application to specific surface area
and shape factor. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 39–59. [CrossRef]
164. Kwan, A.K.H.; Fung, W.W.S.; Wong, H.H.C. Water film thickness, flowability and rheology of cement–sand
mortar. Adv. Cem. Res. 2010, 22, 3–14. [CrossRef]
165. Aïtcin, P.C. Cements of yesterday and today – concrete of tomorrow. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1349–1359.
[CrossRef]
166. Holland, T.C. Silica Fume User’s Manual; Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
& Silica Fume Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
167. LNEC E-462. Resistance of Cements to Sulphate Attack; National Laboratory of Civil Engineering: Lisbon,
Portugal, 2004.
168. ASTM C1202-17. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion
Penetration; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
169. ASTM C1567-13. Standard Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of
Cementitious Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method); ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2013.
170. CEB-FIP. Diagnosis and Assessment of Concrete Structures—State-of-Art Report; FIB—International Federation
for Structural Concrete: Lausanne, Switzerland, 1989.
171. Irassar, E.F. Sulfate attack on cementitious materials containing limestone filler—A review. Cem. Concr. Res.
2009, 39, 241–254. [CrossRef]
172. Jamil, M.; Kaish, A.B.M.A.; Raman, S.N.; Zain, M.F.M. Pozzolanic contribution of rice husk ash in cementitious
system. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 588–593. [CrossRef]
173. Mirzahosseini, M.; Riding, K.A. Influence of different particle sizes on reactivity of finely ground glass as
supplementary cementitious material (SCM). Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 56, 95–105. [CrossRef]
174. Leese, R.; Casey, D. Embodied CO2e of UK Cement, Additions and Cementitious Material; MPA Cement, Mineral
Products Association (MPA): London, UK; Available online: https://cement.mineralproducts.org/documents/
Factsheet_18.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2020).
175. BS 8500-1:2006. Concrete—Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206-1—Part 1: Method of Specifying and
Guidance for the Specifier; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2006; p. 38.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Utilization of By-Products and Wastes As Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Structural Mortar For Sustainable Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilization of By-Products and Wastes As Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Structural Mortar For Sustainable Construction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilization of By-Products and Wastes As Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Structural Mortar For Sustainable Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: by-product; cement; structural mortar; supplementary cementitious material (SCM);

Sustainability 2020, 12, 3888; doi:10.3390/su12093888 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

• floor covering mortar,

• binding material in masonry work,

Table 1. Strength requirements of structural mortar.

Purpose Minimum Strength at 28 Days (MPa) Reference

Table 2. Chemical compositions of common SCMs and OPC.

3.1. SCMs from Industrial Processes

3.1.1. Fly Ash

3.1.2. Bottom Ash

3.1.3. Silica Fume

3.1.4. Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag

3.1.5. Limestone Powder

3.2. SCMs from Natural Sources

3.2.2. Volcanic Ash

3.3. SCMs from Agricultural Wastes

3.3.1. Palm Oil Fuel Ash

3.3.2. Rice Husk Ash

3.4. SCMs from Solid Wastes

4. Principal Functioning Mechanisms of SCMs

• dispersing cement particles,

• the yield stress of binder paste,

5. Effects of SCMs on the Properties of Structural Mortar

Table 4. Effects of major SCMs on the durability properties of mortar.

Carbonation Acid ASR Chloride Freezing and

Table 5. Best performance of prominent SCMs.

Flow Spread Compressive Strength (28 days)

5.1. Fly Ash (FA)

5.1.1. Effects on Flowability

5.1.2. Effects on Strength

5.1.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.2.2. Effects on Strength

5.2.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.3. Silica Fume (SF)

5.3.1. Effects on Flowability

5.3.2. Effects on Strength

5.3.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.4. Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS)

5.4.1. Effects on Flowability

5.4.2. Effects on Strength

5.4.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.5. Limestone Powder (LP)

5.5.1. Effects on Flowability

5.5.2. Effects on Strength

5.5.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.6. Metakaolin (MK)

5.6.1. Effects on Flowability

5.6.2. Effects on Strength

5.6.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.7. Volcanic Ash (VA)

5.7.1. Effects on Flowability

5.7.2. Effects on Strength

5.7.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.8. Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)

5.8.1. Effects on Flowability

5.8.2. Effects on Strength

5.8.3. Effects on Durability and Other Properties

5.9. Rice Husk Ash (RHA)