Performance of mortars with calcined construction waste powder and natural or artificial aggregates

Desempenho de argamassas com pó de resíduos de construção calcinados e agregados naturais ou artificiais

Abstract

The circularity in industrial processes is fundamental to different waste type applications. On this context, this study uses mixed construction and demolition waste (CDW) powders, calcined at 800 ºC, to replace Portland cement at 25 to 45% levels in coating mortars with natural and artificial fine aggregates (crushed sand). Mortars were produced with 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6 ratios (cement: fine aggregate), assessing fresh-state properties and hardened-state properties. Environmental performance was evaluated considering CO₂ emissions and binder consumption. Mortars containing 25% recycled powders showed similar mechanical performance to mortars with reference Portland cement (FPC). Mixtures with artificial aggregates incorporated less air, reducing porosity and water absorption, improving mechanical performance by up to five times compared to natural aggregates. The CDW powder use reduced mortars carbon emissions up to 30%, while the artificial aggregates presence reduced emissions up to 6%. So, this study demonstrates the mixed CDW powders potential as a replacement for cement and the artificial aggregate potential to improve aspects related to circular economy and CO₂ emissions reduction.

Keywords
Coating Mortars; Circular economy; Low carbon technologies; SCM

Resumo

A circularidade nos processos industriais é fundamental para o aproveitamento de diferentes tipos de resíduos. Este estudo explora o uso de pós mistos de resíduos de construção e demolição (RCD), calcinados a 800 ºC, para substituir o cimento Portland em níveis de 25 a 45% em argamassas de revestimento com agregados miúdos naturais e artificiais (areia de brita). Argamassas foram produzidas com proporções de 1:4, 1:5 e 1:6 (cimento: agregado miúdo), avaliando propriedades no estado fresco e no estado endurecido. O desempenho ambiental foi avaliado, considerando as emissões de CO₂ e o consumo de ligante. Argamassas contendo 25% de pós reciclados apresentaram desempenho mecânico semelhante às argamassas com o cimento de referência (FPC). Misturas com agregados artificiais incorporaram menos ar, reduzindo a porosidade e a absorção de água, melhorando o desempenho mecânico em até cinco vezes em comparação com misturas com agregados naturais. O uso de pó de RCD reduziu as emissões de carbono da argamassa em até 30%, enquanto a presença de agregados artificiais reduziu as emissões em até 6% das misturas. Este estudo demonstra o potencial dos resíduos mistos de RCD como substitutos do cimento e agregados artificiais como alternativa à areia natural, promovendo uma economia circular e reduzindo as emissões de CO₂.

Palavras-chave
Argamassas de revestimento; Economia circular; Tecnologia de Baixo carbono; Material Cimentício Suplementar

Introduction

The construction sector plays a key role in infrastructure development and economic growth, which is associated with high carbon dioxide emissions (CO₂) and natural resources exploitation (Lin et al., 2022; Thomas, 2018). The cement industry stands out for its high energy and raw materials demand (Yang et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2020), accounting for approximately 7% of global anthropogenic carbon emissions (SNIC; ABCP, 2019; WBCSD, 2016; WBCSD; IEA, 2018). In Brazil, the Portland cement use in mortars is equivalent to the consumption for concrete production, with growing demand due to the country's economic development (Scrivener; John; Gartner, 2018). New cement mixtures, optimized compositions, and recycled materials are alternatives for reducing CO₂ emissions associated with Portland cement-based materials (PCA, 2021). With the carbon pricing expansion worldwide, which imposes costs on carbon emissions, clean technologies and less emissive production techniques have a high environmental and economic importance (CPLC, 2021; PMR; ICAP, 2016). Since 60% to 70% of Portland cement emissions are related to limestone decarbonizing chemical process to form clinker (CaCO₃ → CaO + CO₂) (Scrivener; John; Gartner, 2018; WBCSD, 2016), the use of Portland cement or clinker replacements is a key strategy in carbon emissions mitigation scenario (GCCA, 2021; Scrivener; John; Gartner, 2018; WBCSD; IEA, 2018).

Supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) are by-products with similar or complementary characteristics when compared to clinker or cement, and which, most of the time, after processing, act by pozzolanic activity (Agra et al., 2023; Berenguer et al., 2020; Hoppe Filho et al., 2017; Skibsted; Snellings, 2019) or by filler effect (Gupta; Chaudhary, 2022; Lothenbach; Scrivener; Hooton, 2011; Scrivener; John; Gartner, 2018). Natural and artificial pozzolans, slag, and fly ash are commonly used, the latter two being in limited regional supply, which justifies the SCM new sources need (Abrão, 2019; Scrivener; John; Gartner, 2018; Skibsted; Snellings, 2019). One of the possibilities reported in literature is using recycled powders (material finer than 0.15 mm) from construction and demolition waste (CDW). This powder incorporation possibility as a SCM in eco-efficient matrices (Asensio et al., 2020; Kolawole et al., 2021; Nasr et al., 2020; Robalo et al., 2021) corroborates the need to increase CDW recycling and reduce emissions associated with cement (John et al., 2019).

Data showed that, between 5% and 20% of dust is generated during CDW recycling (Wang et al., 2022), which is often disposed in landfills (Lu et al., 2018; Xiao et al., 2018), given its low commercial interest. However, according to literature, the 25% use of mechanically treated concrete waste powder as a Portland cement replacement did not impair the mortars’ and concretes mechanical properties (Oksri-Nelfia et al., 2016; Oliveira; Dezen; Possan, 2020). In addition, 30% application of mechanically treated ceramic powders to replace cement provided strengths close to or higher than reference, refining pore structure and improving matrices’ performance and durability (Hoppe Filho et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020).

A literature review (Figure 1) was carried out using Pagani, Kovaleski, and Resende (2015) method on ScienceDirect platform for research papers between 2013 and 2023, with “substitution for Portland cement” OR “supplementary cementitious material” OR “eco-efficient cement” AND “construction demolition waste” OR “CDW” OR “C&D” OR “waste powder” OR “fine” strings used. It was found that most of the studies using SCM focus on concrete (48%), analyzing the material’s properties performance, and few studies included environmental indices. When applied to mortars, the mix proportion corresponds to standard mortars for Portland cement performance, and no analyses were found on coating mortars using SCM.

Figure 1
List of studies on cementitious matrices using SCM

CDW powders, as a partial replacement for cement, contribute to practices aimed for sustainability in construction industry, adding value to the waste when inserted into a production chain and allowing circularity (Asensio et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2019; Frías et al., 2021; Lederer et al., 2020; López Ruiz; Roca Ramón; Gassó Domingo, 2020). This path helps construction and build environment to meet some of the Goals for sustainable development (GSD) related to circular economy (CE) and the technical advances in CE application (GSD 9). It also helps to meet the need for sustainable production and consumption within the construction industry (GSD 12). Consequently, it contributes to actions against climate change by reducing emissions associated with cement industry (GSD 13) (Sharma; Kalbar; Salman, 2022).

This study explores the use of construction and demolition waste powders to replace Portland cement in coating mortars production. Mixed-origin powders (cementitious and ceramic) were used after a 800 ºC calcination, provided from particles packing, according to Oliveira et al. (2024). The coating mortars were produced with natural and artificial aggregates (basalt crushing waste) and analyzed for physical-mechanical properties and environmental performance to reduce Portland cement consumption while maintaining satisfactory performance.

Materials and methods

The experimental program (Figure 2) includes Portland cement compositions with mixed CDW powder replacement (C1, C2, and C3) and fine aggregate (natural and artificial) in mixing ratios of 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6. Twenty-four mortars were produced to analyze their properties in the fresh-state, hardened-state, and environmental performance (carbon emissions). Chemical additives were applied to provide workability.

Figure 2
Experimental program

Materials

The mixed powder used was obtained by separating powder fraction (ø<0.15mm) contained in a mixed fine aggregate from CDW produced at a recycling plant. The material was classified according to NBR 15116 (ABNT, 2021a), and its composition is shown in Figure 3. Sieving was carried out using a 0.15 mm mesh to obtain mixed powder fraction (MP). This material was, then, subjected to calcination in a muffle furnace at 800 °C, chosen due to greater oxides formation in the original material, as verified through thermogravimetric analysis and X-ray fluorescence (Table 1).

Figure 3
MP obtaining process

Table 1
Raw materials characteristics

Sample	OPC1	FPC2	MP3	MP1h4	MP2h5
SiO2	18.46	16.47	36.46	41.16	42.02
Al2O3	4.42	3.72	9.31	10.39	10.67
Fe2O3	1.97	1.75	5.56	6.27	6.33
CaO	59.72	59.77	21.16	23.28	23.53
MgO	6.47	3.89	4.55	5.02	5.12
TiO2	0.24	0.16	1.42	1.62	1.63
MnO	<QL	<QL	<QL	<QL	<QL
Na2O	<QL	<QL	0.25	0.28	0.28
K2O	1.06	1.06	0.49	0.55	0.55
P2O5	<QL	<QL	0.1	0.12	0.11
SO3	3.2	2.71	0.38	0.42	0.45
LOI	4.24	10.48	20.17	10.26	8.47
Specific mass g/cm³	3.23	3.02	2.46	2.74	2.83
D50 (µm)	9.57	9.95	35.52	29.58	29.29
Blaine fineness (cm²/g)	5750	5060	2070	2160	2620

• Note: Note: 1OPC: Ordinary Portland cement; 2FPC: Portland cement (CP II F 32); 3MP: sieved mixed powder (<0.15mm) without calcination; 4MP1h: mixed powder calcined for 1 hour; 5MP2h: mixed powder calcined for 2 hours. 6LOI = Loss on ignition. 7QL = Quantifiable limit.

The Portland cement replacement with CDW powders derives from studies by Oliveira (2022) and Oliveira et al. (2024), who employed particle packaging and optimization techniques to evaluate and improve mechanical and environmental performance. Mortars' binder compositions (C1, C2, and C3) were prepared combining ordinary Portland cement (CPI - S40, called OPC) and mixed CDW powders (in natura and calcined at 800 ºC). 25% filler Portland cement (CP II F 32, called FPC) was used as a reference material. The raw materials physical-chemical characteristics are presented in Table 1 and Figure 4. The compositions proportions are presented in Table 2.

Figure 4
Particle size distribution

Table 2
CDW powder and Portland cement compositions

Type	Nomenclature	Composition (%) in volume
Reference Cement	FPC	FPC
		100%
OPC compositions + Mixed CDW powder	C14	OPC	MP1	MP1h2
		75%	17%	8%
	C25	OPC	MP1	MP2h3
		75%	17%	8%
	C36	OPC	MP1	MP2h3
		55%	30%	15%

• Note: 1MP: sieved mixed powder (<0.15mm) without calcination; 2MP1h: mixed powder calcined for 1 hour; 3MP2h: mixed powder calcined for 2 hours. Thermal activation took place in a muffle furnace at 800 ºC. 4C1 Composition with 75% OPC, 17% CDW powder passing the #100 mesh sieve, and 8% of this powder calcined for 1 hour at 800 ºC. 5C2 Composition with 75 OPC, 17% CDW powder passing the #100 mesh sieve, and 8% of this powder calcined for 2 hours at 800 ºC. 6C3 Composition with 55% OPC, 30% CDW powder passing the #100 mesh sieve, and 15% of this powder calcined for 2 hours at 800 ºC.

The natural (river sand) and artificial (from basalt crushing process) fine aggregates were characterized according to Brazilian standards (Table 3) and have a particle size distribution as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5
Particle size curves

Table 3
Aggregates physical characterization

Standard	Characterization Fine Aggregate	Natural	Artificial
NBR 16916 (ABNT, 2021c)	Specific mass (g/cm³)	2.51	2.67
NBR 16972 (ABNT, 2021d)	Unit mass (g/cm³)	1.59	1.73
	Void index (%)	36.2	35.14
NBR 16916 (ABNT, 2021c)	Absorption (%)	0.27	2.07
NBR 17054 (ABNT, 2024)	Maximum characteristic dimension (mm)	1.2	4.75
	Fineness modulus (mm)	2.46	2.53
NBR 16973 (ABNT, 2021e)	Pulverulent material (%)	0.64	6.4
-	D50 (mm)	0.6	1.18

Powder chemical additives were used to improve the mixtures’ workability: a sodium lauryl ether sulphate-based incorporator (0.35 to 0.45 g/cm³ specific mass and pH 9.5 to 10.5) and a hydroxyethyl cellulose water retainer (pH 6.0 to 8.5).

Methods

Additive content determination

The additives’ saturation content was analyzed using the Kantro cone (Kantro, 1980). Pastes were produced with 80g of fines, a fixed w/f ratio, and varying additive content. For air-entraining additive, the manufacturer recommends a 0.2% cement mass content; 0%, 0.05%, 0.15%, 0.18%, 0.2%, 0.25%, and 0.3% were analyzed. The manufacturer also recommends a 0.5% to 1% content of the cement mass for water retaining additive, so 0%, 0.5%, 0.7%, 0.8%, 1% and 1.2 were analyzed. The pastes were hand-mixed for 1 minute and, in a mechanical mixer (Fisatom 713D), for 2 minutes at 1600 rpm, after which the mixture was poured into the cone up to the surface, dragging it and removing it from the mold. A few seconds later, after paste stabilized, two spreading diameters were measured (Figure 6). Analysis was conducted at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes.

Figure 6
Additive saturation content

Mortars production

Mortars were produced with 1:6, 1:5, and 1:4 ratios (cement + CDW powder and fine aggregate), varying fine aggregate nature (natural or artificial). The reference mortar was produced with CPII - F 32 (FPC). C1, C2, and C3 compositions shown in Table 1 produced the others. A total of 24 mortar mixes were obtained (Table 4), whose water content (w/f) was determined experimentally until the consistency index reached 260 ±5 mm (ABNT, 2016).

Table 4
Mortars mix composition

Mortar	Mixing ratio	Cement (kg/m³)	MP (kg/m³)	Aggregate nature	Aggregate content (kg/m³)	w/f3	Admixture
							(% cement mass)
							Water retainer	Air entrainer
FPC – N162	1:6	308.64	-	Natural	1851.83	0.54	0.15	0.05
C1 – N6		208.28	69.43		1666.24	0.88		0.08
C2 – N6		208.21	69.40		1665.66	0.88		0.08
C3 – N6		163.22	133.54		1780.55	0.63		0.10
FPC – A16		320.69	-	Artificial	1924.11	0.54	0.15	0.05
C1 – A6		221.39	73.80		1771.13	0.81		0.08
C2 – A6		221.31	73.77		1770.47	0.81		0.08
C3 – A6		167.35	136.92		1825.65	0.69		0.1
FPC-N5	1:5	342.10	-	Natural	1710.48	0.6	0.15	0.05
C1 – N5		244.90	81.63		1632.65	0.74		0.08
C2 – N5		244.80	81.60		1631.98	0.74		0.08
C3 – N5		178.49	146.04		1622.67	0.74		0.10
FPC- A5		347.97	-	Artificial	1739.87	0.67	0.15	0.05
C1 – A5		244.85	81.62		1632.32	0.86		0.08
C2 – A5		244.75	81.58		1631.64	0.86		0.08
C3 – A5		186.95	152.96		1699.55	0.72		0.10
FPC-N4	1:4	385.39	-	Natural	1541.57	0.67	0.15	0.05
C1 – N4		277.36	92.45		1479.24	0.78		0.08
C2 – N4		270.23	90.08		1441.25	0.85		0.08
C3 – N4		196.93	161.12		1432.19	0.85		0.10
FPC- A4		389.22	-	Artificial	1556.87	0.74	0.15	0.05
C1 – A4		282.10	94.03		1504.55	0.83		0.08
C2 – A4		281.97	93.99		1503.83	0.83		0.08
C3 – A4		205.42	168.07		1493.97	0.83		0.10

• Note: 1N and A refer to natural or artificial aggregate. 2 Numbers 6, 5, and 4 refer to the fine aggregate ratio in the mix. 3w/f = water/fines. Hatched is a mixture used in the adhesion tensile strength analysis.

Fresh and hardened analysis

Consistency index analysis was a dosage parameter for defining w/f ratio following NBR 13276 (ABNT, 2016). The incorporated air content was determined according to NBR 13278 (ABNT, 2005a). A calibrated 400 cm³ cylindrical container was used for the test, and water retention was determined using a Buchner funnel, according to NBR 13277 (ABNT, 2005b).

The tests in Table 5 were carried out to determine mortars' performance in hardened state. The mechanical tests were made in a servo-controlled hydraulic press (Intermetric CT 201.C model). Dynamic elastic modulus was carried out on ATCP Physical Engineering equipment using Sonelastic 3.0 software according to other authors (Otani; Pereira, 2017; Thomaz; Miyaji; Possan, 2021).

Table 5
Hardened state tests

Tests / Reference		Samples
		Standardized method	Number of samples	Dimensions (mm)	Type	Age (days)
Physical properties	Absorption and void rates	NBR 9778 (ABNT, 2005c)	6	50×100	Cylindrical	28
	Water absorption by capillarity	NBR 9779 (ABNT, 2012)
Mechanical properties	Dynamic elastic modulus	E 1876-22 (ASTM, 2022)		40×40×160	Prismatic Cylindrical
	Flexural tensile strength and compressive strength (MPa)	NBR 13279 (ABNT, 2005d)
	Adhesion tensile strength (MPa)	NBR 13528-2 (ABNT, 2019)	15	Ø = 50	Circle

Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on compressive strength, flexural tensile strength, and dynamic elastic modulus properties using the Scott-Knott test, a completely randomized design and a 5% significance level. Based on compressive strength results, 8 mixtures (highlighted in Table 4) were selected for tensile strength analysis. 60 cm × 60 cm panels were coated with single roughcast ceramic blocks substrates with a 20 mm layer (Figure 7a). After a 28-days air curing, the substrate was prepared and cleaned to apply the test pads. Fifteen pads were bonded with an epoxy-based structural adhesive arranged according to the diagram in Figure 7b. A digital dynamometer was used for pulling (Figure 7c). The results were expressed as test average values, indicating potential tensile bond strength, as per NBR 15258 (ABNT, 2021b). Visual analyses were also carried out on applied coating to monitor cracks development, and the openings were measured with a fissurometer at 7, 14, and 28 days.

Figure 6
Coating scuff test

Environmental performance analysis

Carbon emissions associated with mortars' composition usually guide the environmental bias. These indicators are represented in function of some performance unit, such as compressive strength (Damineli et al., 2010). However, the mechanical requirements for mortars are considerably lower and may only be represented as a function of consumption per m³. So, mortar emissions were calculated based on materials consumption per cubic meter (Equation 1). The estimated emissions from cement and aggregates were based on the literature (Table 6), disregarding transportation and logistics activities emissions. The materials’ consumption are shown in Table 4.

Table 6
Literature data for estimating emissions

Mortar Emissions calculus	Cement Type		Emissions (kg.CO2/kg)	Source
	Reference	FPC	0.749	SIDAC, 2024
	Composition: OPC + Mixed CDW powder	C1	0.647	Oliveira, 2022
		C2	0.669
		C3	0.543
	Fine aggregate	Artificial	0.005	SIDAC, 2024
		Natural	0.013	SIDAC, 2024

$$C=E_{cim}*C_{cim}+E_{aggregate}*C_{aggregate}$$ (Eq. 1)

Where:

C is the CO₂ index in (kg/m³);

E_cim is he cement emissions (kg.CO₂/kg);

C_cim is the cement consumption (kg/m³);

E_aggregate is the aggregate emissions (kg.CO₂/kg); and

C_aggregate is the aggregate consumption (kg/m³).

Results and discussions

Physical properties

Mixtures produced with cement and CDW powders (C1, C2, and C3) showed a reduction in water retention potential compared to the reference material, regardless of ratio (Figure 8). This may occur because the recycled mixed powders, contained in C1, C2 and C3, have a lower specific surface area and larger particle size than cement (Table 1), impairing the water retention mechanism (Hendrickx; Roels; Van Balen, 2010; Sébaïbi; Dheilly; Quéneudec, 2003). Despite that, all mixtures, except C1 with natural aggregate in a 1:4 ratio, met the minimum requirement of 75% retention according to C270 (ASTM, 2019). It is possible to observe, by comparing the aggregates, that the greatest water retention occurs in mixtures containing artificial aggregate, which is attributed to greater powdery material content (10 times greater than the natural aggregate content)(Carrajola et al., 2021; Reddy; Gupta, 2008; Silva Neto; Leite, 2018).

Figure 8
Mortars water retention test

Water retention allows the mortar to maintain its workability without losing water to the substrate or by evaporation (Carasek, 2010). It allows the binder’s hydration reactions to occur gradually, maintaining workability and affecting the hardened state characteristics (Sabbatini; Baía, 2000). Although there is no maximum water retention value indication (Schankoski; Prudêncio Junior; Pilar, 2015), a very high value may be detrimental to mortar’s adhesion (Panarese; Kosmatka; Randall Junior, 1991).

Figure 9 shows that mortars with natural aggregate have higher incorporated air content, consequently increasing void ratio and water absorption in hardened state. As for the binder, composition C3 with a higher substitution level (45%) resulted in the highest absorption for both aggregate types, reaching 26% in 1:6 ratio with natural aggregate and 21%, in the same ratio, with artificial aggregate. The aggregate’s nature influences these properties (Cesar et al., 2015; Romano; Cincotto; Pileggi, 2018). Natural aggregate has a more uniform particle size distribution with a lower fineness modulus, promoting greater air incorporation in the mixtures compared to those with artificial aggregate. Antoniazzi et al. (2020) made the same observation when evaluating the aggregates influence in mortar mixtures. Incorporated air content, when increases in the fresh state, improves mortars workability and cohesion, which is due to the particles’ internal friction reduction, generating distancing between aggregates (Romano; Cincotto; Pileggi, 2018), but also increasing mixtures porosity in hardened state (Bauer; Oliveira, 2017; Romano; Cincotto; Pileggi, 2018), resulting in lower mechanical performance.

Figure 9
Incorporated air content, absorption, and void ratio

Figure 10 shows that capillary water absorption was higher in reference mortar (FPC) with artificial aggregate, after 72 hours. Overall, the 1:6 artificial aggregate ratio resulted in lower absorption when compared to natural aggregate. The opposite occurred in the 1:4, where the lowest absorption was concentrated in natural aggregate. Composition C3, containing 45% OPC replacement with CDW powder, had higher capillary absorption at 72 hours than the reference mortars, regardless aggregate type, suggesting possible future pathological manifestations in a coating with this material. As there are no minimum standards for mortars' capillary water absorption, and considering the new mixtures proposed, the analysis was based on cause-and-effect relationships between the altered property and the reference mixtures.

Figure 10
Water absorption by capillarity

Mixtures with binder compositions C1 and C2 also showed an increase compared to reference (FPC), especially after 24 hours, indicating that the mixed powder use reduces resistance to water penetration. Although the PM chemical composition is predominantly calcium, silica, and alumina (observed in X-ray fluorescence), this material is inert, acting through the filling effect, demonstrated in a previous study (Oliveira et al., 2024), and also has the potential to absorb water (Oliveira, 2022).

Mortars' mechanical properties

The obtained values analysis indicates a high sensitivity to variations in compositions. Generally, the material with artificial aggregate showed high values for dynamic elastic modulus, tensile strength, and compressive strength, with C2-A5 standing out for its superior mechanical performance (Table 7).

Table 7
Mechanical performance’s statistical analysis of variance

Mortar	Compressive strength		Flexural tensile strength			Dynamic modulus of elasticity
	MPa	VA6	MPa	VA	Class (NBR 13281-1)	GPa	VA	Class (NBR 13281-1)
FPC-N4	5.44	a2	2.11	a2	R3	13.67	a5	E1
C1 – N4	6.95	a3	5.63	a5	R4	11.84	a4	E1
C2 – N4	4.47	a2	4.17	a3	R4	10.54	a4	E2
C3 – N4	1.05	a1	2.16	a2	R3	4.49	a1	E4
FPC- A4	7.91	a3	2.39	a2	R3	12.53	a4	E1
C1 – A4	11.94	a4	6.84	a6	R4	15.62	a6	*
C2 – A4	13.89	a4	5.91	a5	R4	17.45	a7	*
C3 – A4	3.05	a1	1.41	a1	R2	8.35	a3	E3
FPC-N5	1.79	a1	1.27	a1	R2	5.87	a1	E4
C1 – N5	3.39	a1	2.35	a2	R3	10.86	a4	E2
C2 – N5	3.33	a1	3.80	a3	R4	7.47	a2	E2
C3 – N5	1.49	a1	1.13	a1	R2	5.58	a1	E4
FPC- A5	5.52	a2	2.25	a2	R3	11.00	a4	E1
C1 – A5	8.08	a3	4.83	a4	R4	18.52	a7	*
C2 – A5	18.72	a5	9.14	a7	R4	20.53	a8	*
C3 – A5	5.94	a2	3.98	a3	R4	11.86	a4	E1
FPC – N465	1.32	a1	1.27	a1	R2	4.95	a1	E4
C11 – N6	2.72	a1	2.46	a2	R3	9.65	a3	E2
C22 – N6	2.85	a1	1.88	a2	R3	9.08	a3	E3
C33 – N6	1.75	a1	1.64	a1	R3	4.29	a1	E4
FPC – A46	5.36	a2	2.20	a2	R3	12.06	a4	E1
C1 – A6	7.19	a3	4.83	a4	R4	17.51	a7	*
C2 – A6	7.97	a3	5.95	a5	R4	19.02	a7	*
C3 – A6	1.55	a1	2.11	a2	R3	5.18	a1	E4

• Note:
• ^*
  the classification a1, a2 ... an, represents the classification of mixtures into groups according to statistical similarity. 1C1 Composition with 75% OPC, 17% CDW powder passing the 100 mesh sieve, and 8% of the powder calcined for 1 hour at 800 ºC. 2C2 Composition with 75 OPC, 17% CDW powder passing the #100 mesh sieve, and 8% of the powder calcined for 2 hours at 800 ºC. 3C3 Composition with 55% OPC, 30% CDW powder passing the #100 mesh sieve, and 15% of the powder calcined for 2 hours at 800 ºC. 4N and A refer to natural or artificial aggregate. 5Numbers 6, 5, and 4 refer to the fine aggregate ratio in the mix. 6Variance analysis (VA).

The classification ranges from R2 to R4 for tensile strength, according to NBR 13281-1 (ABNT, 2023). In the statistical analysis, groups can be divided from a1 to a7, with a predominance of R4 group mixtures observed in mortars containing artificial aggregate for this property. As compressive strength is not classified in the standardization, results are based on statistical variance analysis, separating mortars into groups with statistically similar behavior, from a1 to a5, with mixtures with the highest mechanical performance classified as a4 and a5. More significant correlations are observed between flexural tensile and compressive strength in artificial aggregate mixtures, reaching R² = 0.99 (Figure 11).

Figure 11
Correlation between flexural tensile strength and compressive strength

The stiffness analysis, measured by dynamic elastic modulus, indicates higher moduli for mortars containing artificial aggregate, ranging from E1 to E4, according to NBR 13281-1 (ABNT, 2023). Statistically, the moduli range from classes a1 to a8, with a class a4 predominance, which shows dynamic elastic modulus values between 11 and 13 GPa.

When evaluating binder composition, the mixtures containing C1 (with 75% OPC, 17% MP and 8% MP1h) and C2 (with 75% OPC, 17% MP and 8% MP2h) presented superior mechanical performance compared to reference mixtures with FPC and with C3 (containing 55% OPC, 30% MP and 15% MP2h). This indicates that the mixed powder used as a substitute for Portland cement is adequate at levels up to 25%, while at 45% substitution, it begins to reduce mechanical performance, being inferior to reference mortars.

In the related boxplots (Figura 12), binder composition C2 stands out with the highest values, presenting greatest dispersion (interquartile range) and indicating a significant variation between different mixture proportions. C3 demonstrates the lowest values and a more concentrated distribution, with close first and third quartiles, reflecting less variability. FPC and C3 maintained low and little dispersed values for flexural tensile strength. According to NBR 13281-1 (ABNT, 2023) dynamic elastic modulus for coating mortars above 14 GPa are unsuitable and, therefore, not included in the normative classification. Mortars composed of C1 and C2 binders with artificial aggregate, regardless of aggregate ratio, had high modulus and compressive strength and are, therefore, not recommended for coating.

Figure 12
Mechanical performance comparison between binder compositions

Silva and Campiteli (2008) found that the aggregate type and the aggregate-to-binder ratio are significant in terms of mechanical properties. They found 30% higher flexural tensile strength values for 1:1:4 and 1:1:6 compositions (cement: lime: sand) with natural aggregate at 1.64 and 0.78 MPa and limestone crushed aggregate at 2.32 and 1.07 MPa (Silva; Campiteli, 2008). Such values are considerably lower than those found in this study.

Silva and Campiteli (2008) found higher elastic modulus in matrices with crushed sand, which is associated with the higher powdery material content that contributes to the mixture packing, increasing mass density and reducing voids. This property expresses the mortar's rigidity and ability to deform and is mainly influenced by aggregate particles' intermingling, considering the grains' shape and roughness (Silva; Campiteli, 2008).

The elastic modulus and the other mechanical parameters varied as a function of mixtures’ porosity. The voids acted as stress concentrators, reducing mechanical performance and allowing for greater deformation before rupture (Cesar et al., 2015). This study showed that natural aggregate mortars with higher voids perform less well. It may be seen that C1 and C2, which had the highest compressive strengths, also had the highest dynamic elastic modulus (Figure 13) for 1:4, 1:5, and 1:6 ratios.

Figure 13
Dynamic elastic modulus and flexural tensile strength

The compositions with artificial sand had higher strength than those with natural sand with the same cement proportion, except for the C3 with 1:6 ratio, where close values were obtained regardless of aggregate type. Materials with artificial sand showed higher strengths than the respective reference compositions, except for C3.

The compositions with up to 25% Portland cement replacement with CDW powders in C1 and C2 had higher strengths than the mortars with FPC (Figure 14). Segura et al. (2020), studying limestone filler incorporation with a predominant CaCO₃ and SiO₂ composition, obtained compressive strengths of 4 MPa and 1.91 MPa at 28 days at levels of 25% and 50%, respectively. Lozano-Lunar et al. (2019), when analyzing a siliceous powder replacement in mortars, concluded that a content up to 25% is feasible with a performance similar to reference mortar. For 1:1:6 (cement: lime: sand) ratio, Silva and Campiteli (2008) obtained 2.82 MPa for crushed aggregate mortar and 2.87 for the natural aggregate mortar, while for the 1:1:4 ratio, the values were 7.73 and 6.46 MPa. Except for the materials composed of C3 and natural aggregate, the other mortars in this study had values aligned with the literature.

Figure 14
Mortars compressive strength

The binder:aggregate 1:6 ratio was chosen for the artificial aggregate mixtures and 1:5 for the mixtures with natural aggregate. Both ratios were defined based on analyzing the mortars' mechanical properties to apply the material with the lowest binder consumption. The coatings were examined visually and in a tensile strength test.

Figure 15 shows some cracks identified and monitored at 7, 14, and 28 days, with no cracks appearing between periods. The cracks observed had an opening of less than 0.5 mm, characterized according to NBR 9575 (ABNT, 2003). There was a greater tendency for cracks to open in coatings with artificial aggregate due to higher w/f ratio and greater rigidity. However, cracks observed were dispersed, varying in length from 1 cm to 4 cm, with no connections between them and, in small quantities, less than 40 cm/m². No changes were found regarding cement replacements used.

Figure 15
Coating cracks

Table 8 shows the tensile adhesion strength test results. There were 3 rupture types: in the substrate (A), in the mortar-substrate interface (B), and in the mortar (C), with ruptures predominance in the coating mortar, considered according to Carasek (2010) as cohesive ruptures.

Table 8
Adhesion strength test results

Composition	Average tensile adhesion strength (MPa)	Rupture Type
FPC - N5	0.41	75%	25%
C1 – N5	0.40			100%
C2 – N5	0.42	8%		92%
C3 – N5	0.37			100%
FPC - A6	0.51	17%	33%	50%
C1 – A5	0.48	25%	8%	67%
C2 – A6	0.40	17%	42%	42%
C3 – A6	0.34	67%	33%

All values met the minimum strength requirement of NBR 13749 (ABNT, 2013), higher than 0.3 MPa. They can be used in internal walls for ceramic tiles application and external walls with paint/texture, being classified according to NBR 13281-1 (ABNT, 2023) as RS2 with a strength greater than 0.3 MPa.

Mortar C2 with natural aggregate had a 0.42 MPa value, higher than the reference (0.41 MPa). The other mortars, C1 and C3, also with natural aggregate, had lower values, corresponding to 98% and 90% of the reference. For the mixes with artificial aggregate, the bond strengths were 68%, 78%, and 94% of the reference for C3, C2, and C1, respectively.

Environmental indicators

All mortars produced with CDW powders in compositions C1, C2 and C3 reduced carbon emissions per cubic meter (Figure 16) compared to reference. With values ranging from 174 to 371 kg.CO₂/m³ for mixtures with artificial aggregate and between 184 and 260 kg.CO₂/m³ for mixtures with natural aggregate, the data is consistent with literature (Fontolan et al., 2024; Moraes et al., 2025; SIDAC, 2024). Fontolan et al. (2024) evaluated emissions and carbon capture in lime mortars and obtained carbon emissions between 211.15 and 332.78 kg.CO₂/m³. Moraes et al. (2025), evaluating the recycled aggregates incorporation in mortars, obtained carbon emissions between 215.86 and 230.26 kg.CO₂/m³. The Construction Environmental Performance Information System (SIDAC) indicates an average emission for mortars with 1:4 proportion (cement:sand) of 315 kg.CO₂/m³ and with 1:6, the average is 235.4 kg.CO₂/m³ (SIDAC, 2024).

Figure 16
Carbon dioxide emissions and cement consumption from mortars

Overall, mixed powder content reduced emissions by up to 31% per kg.CO₂/m³, and in terms of binder, the reductions reached 180 kg.Cement/m³. As for CO₂ emissions and Portland cement consumption, considering compositions tensile adhesion results (hatched Table 4), C1 had the greatest increase, with the potential to reduce carbon emissions by 20%, equivalent to 50kg.CO₂/m³ and approximately 100 kg.Cement/m³ (1:6 artificial aggregate). Composition C2 showed superior adhesion tensile strength and a 14% reduction in CO₂ emissions when compared to reference material, equivalent to 39 kg.CO₂/m³ and 97 kg.Cement/m³ (1:5 natural aggregate). Composition C3 met the normative parameter for adhesion performance and reduced carbon emissions by 30%, equivalent to 81 kg.CO₂/m³ and 163 kg.Cement/m³ (1:5 natural aggregate) and 75 kg.CO₂/m³ and 153 kg.Cement/m³ (1:6 artificial aggregate). It should be noted that all compositions complied with Brazilian standard for tensile adhesion test.

The artificial aggregate composed mortars had lower cement consumption per m³ than mortars with the same composition and natural aggregate. The lowest emissions were also attributed to artificial aggregate (<6%) because the emissions considered for this aggregate were lower than those for natural material.

Conclusions

Considering the study's aim of analyzing mortars performance when produced with construction and demolition waste powder as a partial replacement for Ordinary Portland cement, with aggregates of natural and artificial origin, the main conclusions are listed as follows:

1. it was observed that Portland cement mixtures with calcined mixed powder had a reduced water retention capacity. It was also observed a greater tendency to incorporate air into the C3 composition (with the highest mixed powder content, 45%) and into compositions with natural aggregate;

2. or physical properties, mortars C1 and C2 (with a 25% replacement content) behaved similarly regarding water absorption and void ratio. For capillarity coefficients, compositions C1 and C2 in 1:6 mix ratio (for both aggregate types), C1-A5, C2-A5, and C2-N5 showed lower capillarity coefficient than the reference, which is a positive conclusion;

3. mixtures C1 and C2 (25% CDW powder) and artificial aggregate were not suitable for coating due to their high elastic modulus but could be better explored for structural masonry application, with additional tests, although the coating did not show cracks or deformations characteristic of higher dynamic modulus materials;

4. for adhesion tensile strength, all mixes met the minimum requirement set by Brazilian standard, with the best performances shown by C2-N5 compositions, followed by C1-A6;

5. for environmental performance, the compositions with mixed powder reduced CO₂ emissions up to 31% per kg.CO₂/m³, and for binder, the reductions reached 180 kg.Cement/m³; and

6. given the results obtained in this study and considering the mortars’ physical and mechanical properties, it could be stated that all compositions (C1>C2>C3) achieved satisfactory performance. This confirms CDW powder using potential to replace Portland cement, reducing CO₂ emissions without interfering significantly with the mortars' performance regarding the evaluated properties.

Declaração de Disponibilidade de Dados

Os dados da pesquisa serão disponibilizados mediante solicitação.

References

• ABRÃO, P. C. R. A. O uso de pozolanas como materiais cimentícios suplementares: disponibilidade, reatividade, demanda de água e indicadores ambientais. São Paulo, 2019. 144 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências) – Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2019.
• AGRA, T. M. S. et al Characterizing and processing a kaolinite-rich water treatment sludge for use as high-reactivity pozzolan in cement manufacturing. Applied Clay Science, v. 236, n. November 2022, p. 106870, 2023.
• ANTONIAZZI, J. P. et al. Incorporação de ar em argamassas estabilizadas: influência dos aditivos, agregados e tempo de mistura. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 20, n. 3, p. 285–304, jul./set. 2020.
• ASENSIO, E. et al. Fired clay-based construction and demolition waste as pozzolanic addition in cements: design of new eco-efficient cements. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 265, p. 121610, 2020.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13277: argamassa para assentamento e revestimento de paredes e tetos: determinação da retenção de água. Rio de Janeiro, 2005b.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13278: argamassa para assentamento e revestimento de paredes e tetos: determinação da densidade de massa e do teor de ar incorporado. Rio de Janeiro, 2005a.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13279: argamassa para assentamento e revestimento de paredes e tetos: determinação da resistência à tração na flexão e à compressão. Rio de Janeiro, 2005d.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13281-1: argamassas inorgânicas: requisitos e métodos de ensaios: parte 1: argamassas para revestimento de paredes e tetos. Rio de Janeiro, 2023.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13528-2: revestimento de paredes de argamassas inorgânicas: determinação da resistência de aderência à tração: parte 2: aderência ao substrato. Rio de Janeiro, 2019.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13749: revestimento de paredes e tetos de argamassas inorgânicas: especificação. Rio de Janeiro, 2013.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 15116: agregados reciclados para uso em argamassas e concretos de cimento Portland: requisitos e métodos de ensaios. Rio de Janeiro, 2021a.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 15258: argamassa para revestimento de paredes e tetos: determinação da resistência potencial de aderência à tração. Rio de Janeiro, 2021b.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 16541: argamassa para assentamento e revestimento de paredes e tetos: preparo da mistura para a realização de ensaios. Rio de Janeiro, 2016.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 16916: agregado miúdo: determinação da densidade e da absorção de água. Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 16972: agregados: determinação da massa unitária e do índice de vazios. Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 16973: agregados: determinação do material fino que passa pela peneira de 75 µm por lavagem. Rio de Janeiro, 2021.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 17054: agregados: determinação da composição granulométrica: método de ensaio. Rio de Janeiro, 2022.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 9575: impermeabilização: seleção e projeto. Rio de Janeiro, 2003.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 9778: argamassa e concreto endurecidos: determinação da absorção de água, índice de vazios e massa específica. Rio de Janeiro, 2005c.
• ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 9779: argamassa e concreto endurecidos: determinação da absorção de água por capilaridade. Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
• AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS. C270: standard specification for mortar for unit masonry. West Conshohocken, 2019.
• AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS. E 1876: standard test method for dynamic young's modulus, shear modulus, and poisson's ratio by impulse excitation of vibration. West Conshohocken, 2022.
• BAUER, B.; OLIVEIRA, V. C. Comportamentos e propriedades das argamassas estabilizadas de revestimento. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE TECNOLOGIA DE ARGAMASSA, 10., São Paulo, 2017. Anais [...] São Paulo, 2017.
• BERENGUER, R. A. et al. Sugar cane bagasse ash as a partial substitute of Portland cement: Effect on mechanical properties and emission of carbon dioxide. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, v. 8, n. 2, p. 103655, 2020.
• CARASEK, H. Argamassas São Paulo: In: ISAIA, G. C. (org.). Materiais de construção civil e princípios de ciência e engenharia dos materiais São Paulo: IBRACON, 2010. v. 1, cap. 28.
• CARBON PRICING LEADERSHIP COALITION. What is carbon pricing? 2021. Disponível em: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/what Acesso em: 5 nov. 2022.
  » https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/what
• CARRAJOLA, R. et al. Fresh properties of cement-based thermal renders with fly ash, air lime and lightweight aggregates. Journal of Building Engineering, v. 34, n. October 2020, p. 101868, 2021.
• CESAR, R. et al. Impact of aggregate grading and air-entrainment on the properties of fresh and hardened mortars. Construction and Building Materials, v. 82, p. 219–226, 2015.
• CHEN, J. J. et al. Lowering cement content in mortar by adding superfine zeolite as cement replacement and optimizing mixture proportions. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 210, p. 66–76, 2019.
• DAMINELI, B. L. et al Cement and concrete composites measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cement and Concrete Composites, v. 32, n. 8, p. 555–562, 2010.
• FONTOLAN, B. L. et al. CO2 emissions and uptake in rendering mortars: sustainable approach. Ambiente Construído, v. 24, e131131, jan./dez. 2024.
• FRÍAS, M. et al. Reactivity in cement pastes bearing fine fraction concrete and glass from construction and demolition waste: Microstructural analysis of viability. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 148, p. 106531, 2021.
• GLOBAL CEMENT AND CONCRETE ASSOCIATION. Concrete Future - Roadmap to Net Zero Global Cement and Concrete Association, p. 1–48, 2021.
• GUPTA, S.; CHAUDHARY, S. State of the art review on supplementary cementitious materials in India – II: characteristics of SCMs, effect on concrete and environmental impact. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 357, n. March, p. 131945, 2022.
• HENDRICKX, R.; ROELS, S.; VAN BALEN, K. Measuring the water capacity and transfer properties of fresh mortar. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 40, n. 12, p. 1650–1655, 2010.
• HOPPE FILHO, J. et al. Atividade pozolânica de adições minerais para cimento Portland (Parte I): Índice de atividade pozolânica (IAP) com cal, difração de raios-X (DRX), termogravimetria (TG/DTG) e Chapelle modificado. Matéria, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, 2017.
• HOPPE FILHO, J. et al. Atividade pozolânica de adições minerais para cimento portland (Parte ii): índice de atividade pozolânica com cimento portland (IAP), difração de raios-x (DRX) e termogravimetria (TG/DTG). Materia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 3, 2017.
• HOPPE FILHO, J. et al Red ceramic waste as supplementary cementitious material: microstructure and mechanical properties. Construction and Building Materials, v. 296, p. 123653, 2021.
• JOHN, V. M. et al. Rethinking cement standards: opportunities for a better future. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 124, n. March, p. 105832, 2019.
• KANTRO, D. L. Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement paste: a miniature slump test. Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, v. 2, n. 2, p. 95–102, 1980.
• KOLAWOLE, J. T. et al. Blended cement binders containing bamboo leaf ash and ground clay brick waste for sustainable concrete. Materialia, v. 15, p. 101045, 2021.
• LEDERER, J. et al. Potentials for a circular economy of mineral construction materials and demolition waste in urban areas: a case study from Vienna. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 161, p. 104942, 2020.
• LI, L. et al. Waste ceramic powder as a pozzolanic supplementary filler of cement for developing sustainable building materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 259, p. 120853, 2020.
• LIN, Q. et al Technical perspective of carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Engineering, v. 14, p. 27–32, 2022.
• LÓPEZ RUIZ, L. A.; ROCA RAMÓN, X.; GASSÓ DOMINGO, S. The circular economy in the construction and demolition waste sector: s review and an integrative model approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 248, p. 119238, 2020.
• LOTHENBACH, B.; SCRIVENER, K.; HOOTON, R. D. Supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 41, n. 12, p. 1244–1256, 2011.
• LOZANO-LUNAR, A. et al. Performance and durability properties of self-compacting mortars with electric arc furnace dust as filler. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 219, p. 818–832, 2019.
• LU, B. et al. Effects of carbonated hardened cement paste powder on hydration and microstructure of Portland cement. Construction and Building Materials, v. 186, p. 699–708, 2018.
• MORAES, P. et al. Environmental and technical assessment of mortars produced with recycled aggregate from construction and demolition waste. Construction and Building Materials, v. 467, n. January, 2025.
• NASR, M. S. et al. Properties of eco-friendly cement mortar contained recycled materials from different sources. Journal of Building Engineering, v. 31, p. 101444, 2020.
• OKSRI-NELFIA, L. et al. Reuse of recycled crushed concrete fines as mineral addition in cementitious materials. Materials and Structures, v. 49, n. 8, p. 3239–3251, 2016.
• OLIVEIRA, D. R. B. Aproveitamento da fração fina de resíduo de concreto como substituto ao Cimento Portland Curitiba, 2022. 300 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Construção Civil) - Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, 2022.
• OLIVEIRA, D. R. B. et al. Mixed construction and demolition powder as a filler to Portland cement: study on packaged pastes. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 24, e131882, jan./dez. 2024.
• OLIVEIRA, T. C. F.; DEZEN, B. G. S.; POSSAN, E. Use of concrete fine fraction waste as a replacement of Portland cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 273, p. 123126, 2020.
• OTANI, L. B., PEREIRA, A. H. A. Determinação do módulo de Elasticidade do concreto empregando a técnica de excitação por impulso São Carlos: ATCP Engenharia física. 2017.
• PAGANI, R. N.; KOVALESKI, J. L.; RESENDE, L. M. Methodi Ordinatio: a proposed methodology to select the impact factor, number of citation, and year. Scientometrics, p. 2109–2135, 2015.
• PANARESE, W. C.; KOSMATKA, S. H.; RANDALL, F. A. Concrete mansory handbook for architects, engineers, builders. 5. ed. New York: Portland Cement Association, 1991.
• PARTNERSHIP FOR MARKET READINESS; INTERNATIONAL CARBON ACTION PARTNERSHIP. Comercio de emisiones en la práctica: manual sobre el diseño y la implementación de sistemas de comercio de emisiones Partnership for Market Readiness International Carbon Action Partnership, p. 1–211, Washington 2016.
• PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Roadmap neutrality: a more sustainable world is Shaped by Concrete 2021.
• REDDY, B. V. V.; GUPTA, A. Influence of sand grading on the characteristics of mortars and soil: cement block masonry. Construction and Building Materials v. 22, p. 1614–1623, 2008.
• ROBALO, K. et al. Efficiency of cement content and of compactness on mechanical performance of low cement concrete designed with packing optimization. Construction and Building Materials, v. 266, p. 121077, 2021.
• ROMANO, R. C. de O.; CINCOTTO, M. A.; PILEGGI, R. G. Incorporação de ar em materiais cimentícios: uma nova abordagem para o desenvolvimento de argamassas de revestimento. Ambiente Construído, porto Alegre, v. 18, n. 2, p. 289–308, abr./jun, 2018.
• SABBATINI, F. H.; BAÍA, L. L. M. Projeto e execução de revestimentos de argamassa 1. ed. São Paulo: O Nome da Rosa., 2000.
• SCHANKOSKI, R. A.; PRUDÊNCIO JUNIOR, L. R.; PILAR, R. Influência do tipo de argamassa e suas propriedades do estado fresco nas propriedades mecânicas de alvenarias estruturais de blocos de concreto para edifícios altos. Matéria, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 4, p. 1008–1023, 2015.
• SCRIVENER, K. L.; JOHN, V. M.; GARTNER, E. M. Eco-efficient cements: potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 114, p. 2–26, 2018.
• SÉBAÏBI, Y.; DHEILLY, R. M.; QUÉNEUDEC, M. Study of the water-retention capacity of a lime-sand mortar: influence of the physicochemical characteristics of the lime. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 33, n. 5, p. 689–696, 2003.
• SEGURA, J. et al. Influence of recycled limestone filler additions on the mechanical behaviour of commercial premixed hydraulic lime based mortars. Construction and Building Materials, v. 238, p. 117722, 2020.
• SHARMA, N.; KALBAR, P. P.; SALMAN, M. Global review of circular economy and life cycle thinking in building Demolition Waste Management: a way ahead for India. Building and Environment, v. 222, p. 109413, 2022.
• SILVA NETO, G. A. da; LEITE, M. B. Study of the influence of the mortar fine recycled aggregate ratio and the mixing sequence on the behavior of new mortars. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 18, n. 2, p. 53–69, abr./jun. 2018.
• SILVA, N. G. da; CAMPITELI, V. C. Correlação entre módulo de elasticidade dinâmico e resistências mecânicas de argamassas de cimento, cal e areia. Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre, v. 8, n. 4, p. 21–35, out./dez. 2008.
• SINDICATO NACIONAL DA INDÚSTRIA DO CIMENTO; ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE CIMENTO PORTLAND. Roadmap Tecnológico do Cimento Rio de Janeiro, 2019.
• SISTEMA DE INFORMAÇÃO DO DESEMPENHO AMBIENTAL DA CONSTRUÇÃO. Dados do produto 2024. Disponível em: https://sidac.org.br/busca Acesso em: 2 jun. 2024.
  » https://sidac.org.br/busca
• SKIBSTED, J.; SNELLINGS, R. Reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in cement blends. Cement and Concrete Research, v. 124, p. 105799, 2019.
• THOMAS, B. S. Green concrete partially comprised of rice husk ash as a supplementary cementitious material: a comprehensive review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v. 82, p. 3913–3923, 2018.
• THOMAZ, W. de A.; MIYAJI, D. Y.; POSSAN, E. Comparative study of dynamic and static Young’s modulus of concrete containing basaltic aggregates. Case Studies in Construction Materials, v. 15, n. March, p. e00645, 2021.
• WANG, L. et al. Eco-friendly treatment of recycled concrete fines as supplementary cementitious materials. Construction and Building Materials, v. 322, p. 126491, 2022.
• WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY. Low Carbon Technology Roadmap for the Indian Cement Sector: Status Review 2018 p. 52, 2018.
• WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Cement Sector Scope 3 GHG Accounting and Reporting Guidance Geneve, 2016.
• XIAO, J. et al. Mechanical properties of concrete mixed with recycled powder produced from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 188, p. 720–731, 2018.
• YANG, K.-H. et al. Effect of supplementary cementitious materials on reduction of CO2 emissions from concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 103, p. 774–783, 2015.
• ZHAO, Y. et al. Recycling of quarry dust for supplementary cementitious materials in low carbon cement. Construction and Building Materials, v. 237, p. 117608, 2020.

Edited by

• Editor:
  Enedir Ghisi

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  18 Aug 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  27 Feb 2025
• Accepted
  09 May 2025