Menu
Brasil
home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next
home Sumário
Articles • Matéria (Rio J.) 30 • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-RMAT-2025-0239 linkcopy

Open-access Sustainable concrete: integrating environmentally friendly materials for environmentally friendly construction

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

    ABSTRACT

    This study investigates the performance of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under different curing conditions, including normal curing and aggressive acid environments (hydrochloric and sulfuric acid), with and without the use of admixtures. The concrete mixes were evaluated for key properties such as compressive strength, saturated water absorption, effective porosity, resistance to acid and sulfate attacks, and chloride ion permeability. The results demonstrated that the inclusion of admixtures significantly enhanced the compressive strength, reducing water absorption and effective porosity, thus improving the overall density and durability of the concrete. At 28 days, the compressive strength of the concrete with admixtures was 29.18 MPa, compared to 26.77 MPa for conventional concrete. The admixtures also improved the resistance to sulfuric acid and sulfate attacks, as evidenced by reduced weight loss and strength loss compared to mixes without admixtures. Additionally, the RCPT results showed lower chloride ion permeability in mixes with admixtures, indicating enhanced durability against chloride-induced corrosion. Overall, the findings highlight the effectiveness of using admixtures in Portland Slag Cement concrete for improving durability and performance under aggressive environmental conditions.

    Keywords:
    Portland Slag Cement; Strength; Durability; Eco-friendly Materials

    1. INTRODUCTION

    Fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, is increasingly being used in combination with Portland slag cement to enhance the properties of concrete. This approach not only helps in waste management but also improves the sustainability of construction materials by reducing CO2 emissions and utilizing industrial byproducts.

    Incorporating fly ash into Portland slag cement presents a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable solution for concrete production. The use of fly ash and slag, both by-products of industrial processes, reduces the reliance on traditional raw materials, thereby lowering production costs [1]. These materials, often considered waste, are repurposed effectively, minimizing environmental disposal issues and contributing to the circular economy [2]. Additionally, this approach significantly reduces CO2 emissions, addressing a critical challenge in the cement and construction industries [3]. High lime fly ash plays a pivotal role in enhancing the performance of Portland slag cement. Its pozzolanic properties facilitate the formation of additional calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) during the hydration process, improving the concrete’s microstructure and durability [4, 5]. This enhanced durability leads to better resistance to environmental degradation, such as sulfate attack and carbonation, making it ideal for long-term applications [6]. The progressive development of compressive strength over time ensures that the concrete meets and often exceeds structural performance requirements [7].

    The sustainable use of fly ash and slag also reduces the dependency on Portland cement clinker, a major contributor to CO2 emissions during its energy-intensive manufacturing process [8, 9]. By partially replacing clinker with these supplementary cementitious materials, the overall carbon footprint of cement production is lowered. Various studies have optimized the mix design of fly ash and slag in cement to achieve desired strength levels [10]. For instance, a mix with 25% fly ash can maintain compressive strength while reducing environmental impact [11]. The inclusion of fly ash in cement mixtures can initially delay strength gain but improves compressive strength at later stages due to the pozzolanic reaction [12]. The addition of fly ash can affect the setting time and workability of concrete. Superplasticizers are often used to maintain workability without altering the water-cement ratio [13]. Substituting cement with fly ash can influence radon exhalation rates, which is a consideration in regions where radon emissions are a concern [14].

    Developing new types of binders using fly ash and slag, such as alkali-activated cements, represents a significant advancement in creating sustainable alternatives to traditional Portland cement [15, 16]. Alkali-activated cements, often referred to as geopolymer cements, leverage the chemical reaction between aluminosilicate-rich materials like fly ash and slag and alkaline activators [17]. This innovative approach can reduce CO2 emissions associated with cement production by up to 80% compared to Portland cement, which emits approximately 800–900 kg of CO2 per metric ton during manufacturing [18, 19]. The integration of fly ash and slag in cement not only addresses waste disposal challenges but also promotes the recycling of industrial byproducts in construction materials [20]. By incorporating these materials into alkali-activated systems, the industry can divert significant volumes from landfills, reducing environmental pollution and conserving natural resources [21].

    In addition to environmental benefits, alkali-activated binders exhibit superior performance characteristics. These materials demonstrate compressive strengths exceeding 60 MPa in some formulations, enhanced durability, and resistance to chemical attacks, including sulfate and chloride penetration [22, 23]. The lower energy requirements during production, compared to Portland cement, make them economically attractive [24]. Fly ash-slag-based binder reduces leaching concerns and satisfies strength requirements while providing low-cost green backfilling, safe disposal of metallurgical solid waste, and urban hazardous waste [25]. The strength and fluidity of cemented fine tailings backfill may be successfully increased with lithium slag and fly ash-based binder (LFB), providing underground miners with a cost-effective and secure substitute [26].

    On enhancing the durability and sustainability of concrete through the integration of alternative materials. ABDELLATIEF et al. [27] and ELGENDY et al. [28] employed response surface methodology to optimize ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) using ultrafine fly ash, metakaolin, and industrial waste, demonstrating improved mechanical performance with reduced environmental impact [29]. The effectiveness of steel slag aggregates in green concrete mixes, enhancing strength while supporting waste utilization. Improved pozzolanic reactivity under steam curing, contributing to early strength gain [30]. The corrosion resistance in UHPC exposed to marine environments, validating the use of eco-friendly additives [31, 32]. For recycled materials in durable concrete systems explored concrete performance under thermal stress, finding fiber reinforcement beneficial for bond strength and integrity [33]. Collectively, these studies guide the development of resilient, sustainable concrete for aggressive environments [34].

    The present study addresses a critical gap in understanding the performance of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under aggressive environmental conditions, particularly in acidic and sulfate-rich environments, which are common in industrial and marine settings. While previous studies have explored the general durability of PSC concrete, limited research has systematically evaluated the combined effects of admixtures and varied curing conditions, especially acidic exposure using both hydrochloric and sulfuric acids.

    This research distinguishes itself by comprehensively assessing multiple key durability parameters—including compressive strength, saturated water absorption, effective porosity, resistance to acid and sulfate attacks, and chloride ion permeability—under both normal and aggressive curing conditions. The incorporation of admixtures and their quantifiable impact on improving performance metrics such as strength gain, reduced porosity, and enhanced resistance to chemical attack represents a significant contribution to the field. By offering comparative results between conventional and admixture-enhanced PSC concrete, this study provides valuable insights for the development of more durable and resilient concrete materials suitable for harsh environments, thus supporting sustainable infrastructure development.

    2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

    2.1. Cement

    Cement exhibits distinct physical and chemical properties, making it a vital construction material. Its specific gravity is 2.68, and it demonstrates a fineness of 2% on the 90-micron sieve. The consistency is 32%, with initial and final setting times recorded at 113 minutes and 248 minutes, respectively. Strength tests reveal compressive strengths of 12.08 N/mm2 at 3 days, 17.51 N/mm2 at 7 days, and 29.68 N/mm2 at 28 days, while the soundness test shows minimal expansion at 1 mm. Chemically, cement comprises 35.17% CaO, 34.82% SiO2, 10.51% Al2O3, 9.84% MgO, 0.64% Fe2O3, 0.63% K2O, and 1.66% loss on ignition.

    2.2. Fine aggregate

    M-sand possesses essential physical properties ideal for construction applications. It has a specific gravity of 2.65 and a fineness modulus of 2.72, indicating a well-graded particle distribution. Its water absorption is minimal at 1%, with a bulk density of 1667 kg/m3, making it suitable for concrete and mortar. The sand is grainy in texture and grey in color, with a maximum grain size of 1.12 mm, ensuring adequate compaction and strength. Additionally, its fine particle content, reflected in a secondary fineness modulus of 1.51, enhances its workability in construction mixes.

    2.3. Course aggregate

    For structural concrete to be strong and stable, coarse particles are essential. Their nominal size of 20 mm and often angular form guarantee efficient interlocking and load distribution. The material’s density in relation to water is indicated by its specific gravity, which is 2.988. It exhibits a low water absorption rate of 0.5%, making it resistant to moisture-induced deterioration. The specific mass is 1528 kg/m3, contributing to the concrete’s overall bulk density. Additionally, the crushing value is 17.45%, reflecting the aggregate’s ability to withstand mechanical loads without significant degradation, ensuring durability in construction applications.

    2.4. Admixtures

    Admixtures like Conplast are used to enhance the properties of concrete mixes. Conplast admixtures are brown in color, ensuring easy identification and uniform mixing. They have a pH of 5.5, indicating mild acidity, which is suitable for compatibility with cement. The density of Conplast admixtures is 1.78 g/cm3, providing optimal dispersion in concrete to improve workability, strength, or durability, depending on the application. These properties make Conplast an effective additive for tailoring concrete mixes to specific construction requirements.

    2.5. Curing

    Curing is vital in concrete production, influencing performance, strength, and durability. Three techniques are commonly used: conventional curing, hydrochloric acid curing, and sulfuric acid curing. Conventional curing involves keeping concrete moist and at a constant temperature, ensuring proper hydration for optimal strength and minimal cracking. Hydrochloric acid curing, popular in precast industries, accelerates curing by applying or immersing concrete in a diluted acid solution, enhancing chemical reactions while preserving strength. However, it requires careful monitoring to prevent reinforcement corrosion. Sulfuric acid curing, used in scientific studies, exposes concrete to acid vapors, rapidly measuring early-age strength development under controlled conditions. Figure 1 shows the materials used in this research.

    thumbnail of Figure 1
    Figure 1
    Shows the materials used in this research.

    3. METHODOLOGY AND MIX PROPOSITION

    Table 1 shows the mix proposition of various mix. Figure 2 shows the research flow.

    Thumbnail
    Table 1
    Mix proposition.
    thumbnail of Figure 2
    Figure 2
    Methodology.

    4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    4.1. Compressive strength test

    The results demonstrate that Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete exhibits promising performance under different curing conditions. The conventional concrete (M1) showed a gradual increase in compressive strength, reaching 26.77 MPa at 28 days. The inclusion of admixture (M2) enhanced the strength across all curing periods, achieving 29.18 MPa at 28 days. When compared to conventional concrete, mixes without admixture (M3) showed slightly lower strengths, with 28.11 MPa at 28 days.

    Curing in hydrochloric acid (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9) resulted in reduced strength compared to normal curing. However, the addition of admixtures (M5 and M8) improved the compressive strength under these conditions. The highest strength under acid curing was achieved in M5 (28.52 MPa at 28 days), showing the beneficial role of admixtures in enhancing durability. Overall, the use of Portland Slag Cement and admixtures in acid-cured concrete demonstrated significant improvements in compressive strength and durability. Figure 3 compressive strength test.

    thumbnail of Figure 3
    Figure 3
    Compressive strength test.

    4.2. Saturated water absorption test

    The saturated water absorption results reveal the moisture retention characteristics of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under different curing conditions. Conventional concrete (M1) showed a gradual decrease in water absorption from 3.02% at 28 days to 2.46% at 90 days. The inclusion of admixture (M2) reduced absorption slightly across all curing periods, with values of 2.97%, 2.70%, and 2.41% at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively. Similarly, mixes without admixture (M3) exhibited comparable trends with absorption values of 2.99%, 2.72%, and 2.43%.

    Under acid curing conditions, both hydrochloric (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9) showed slightly higher absorption compared to normal curing. The highest absorption was observed in M7 (3.08% at 28 days), and the lowest was seen in M2 (2.97% at 28 days). However, the presence of admixtures (M5, M8) resulted in slightly lower absorption values, indicating enhanced durability. Overall, admixtures helped in reducing water absorption, especially under acidic curing environments. Figure 4 shows the saturated water absorption test.

    thumbnail of Figure 4
    Figure 4
    Shows the saturated water absorption test.

    4.3. Porosity test

    The effective porosity results indicate the porosity trends of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under various curing conditions. Conventional concrete (M1) showed a gradual decrease in porosity, from 5.88% at 28 days to 4.35% at 90 days. The use of admixtures (M2) resulted in slightly lower porosity values, with 5.82%, 5.05%, and 4.29% at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively, indicating improved compactness. Similarly, mixes without admixture (M3) showed minor reductions in porosity, with values of 5.85%, 5.08%, and 4.32% over time.

    For acid-cured concrete, both hydrochloric acid (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9) resulted in slightly higher porosity compared to normal curing, with M7 exhibiting the highest porosity at 5.89% at 28 days. However, the presence of admixtures (M5 and M8) slightly reduced porosity in comparison to mixes without admixture (M6 and M9), suggesting that admixtures enhance the pore structure, thereby improving durability. Overall, acid curing increased porosity, but the use of admixtures mitigated this effect to some extent. Figure 5 shows the porosity test.

    thumbnail of Figure 5
    Figure 5
    Shows the porosity test.

    4.4. Sulphuric acid resistance test

    The loss in weight due to sulfuric acid exposure provides insight into the durability of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under different curing conditions. Conventional concrete (M1) showed a steady decrease in weight loss over time, with values of 4.71%, 4.42%, and 3.54% at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively. The inclusion of admixtures (M2) slightly reduced the weight loss, with 4.64%, 4.34%, and 3.46% at the same intervals, indicating improved resistance to sulfuric acid attack. Mixes without admixture (M3) exhibited similar trends, with losses of 4.67%, 4.37%, and 3.49%, showing marginally higher losses than those with admixtures. In acid-cured concrete, both hydrochloric acid (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9) resulted in slightly higher weight loss compared to normal curing. The highest loss was observed in M9 (4.78% at 28 days), while the lowest was in M2 (4.64%). Admixtures provided better resistance to acid-induced weight loss, demonstrating their role in enhancing the durability of concrete under aggressive conditions. Figure 6 shows the loss of weight in sulphuric acid test.

    thumbnail of Figure 6
    Figure 6
    Shows the loss of weight in sulphuric acid test.

    The loss in strength from sulfuric acid exposure reflects the concrete’s resistance to acid-induced degradation. Conventional concrete (M1) showed a gradual decrease in strength, with losses of 5.80%, 5.37%, and 3.98% at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively. The inclusion of admixtures (M2) resulted in slightly reduced strength loss, with values of 5.72%, 5.27%, and 3.90%, demonstrating improved resistance to acid attack. Mixes without admixture (M3) showed comparable results, with losses of 5.75%, 5.30%, and 3.93%, which were slightly higher than those with admixtures. Acid-cured concrete exhibited higher strength losses than normal curing, with the highest loss observed in M9 (5.89% at 28 days) and the lowest in M2 (5.72%). The presence of admixtures in acid-cured mixes (M5, M8) helped mitigate strength losses, showing improved durability. Overall, the results highlight the beneficial role of admixtures in enhancing the acid resistance of concrete. Figure 7 shows the loss of strength in sulphuric acid test.

    thumbnail of Figure 7
    Figure 7
    Shows the loss of strength in sulphuric acid test.

    4.5. Sulfate attack test

    The strength loss from the sulfate attack test indicates the durability of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under aggressive conditions. Conventional concrete (M1) showed a gradual decrease in strength loss, with values of 5.25%, 4.90%, and 3.76% at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively. The inclusion of admixtures (M2) slightly reduced strength loss, with values of 5.17%, 4.81%, and 3.69%, suggesting better resistance to sulfate-induced degradation.

    Mixes without admixture (M3) exhibited similar trends, with strength losses of 5.21%, 4.84%, and 3.72%, showing marginally higher losses than those with admixtures. Concrete cured in hydrochloric (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9) showed slightly higher strength loss compared to normal curing. The highest loss was observed in M9 (5.33% at 28 days), while the lowest was in M2 (5.17%). The presence of admixtures (M5, M8) reduced the sulfate attack-induced strength loss, highlighting their role in enhancing durability under sulfate exposure. Figure 8 shows the loss of weight of sulfate resistance test.

    thumbnail of Figure 8
    Figure 8
    Shows the loss of weight of sulfate resistance test.

    4.6. Rapid chloride resistance test

    The RCPT results indicate the chloride ion permeability of Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete under different curing conditions. Conventional concrete (M1) exhibited a decrease in total charge passed over time, from 2179 Coulombs at 28 days to 1814 Coulombs at 90 days, demonstrating reduced permeability with age. The inclusion of admixtures (M2) led to a slight reduction in total charge, with values of 2157, 1921, and 1782 Coulombs at 28, 56, and 90 days, respectively, suggesting improved resistance to chloride ion penetration.

    Mixes without admixture (M3) showed similar trends with total charges of 2175, 1935, and 1799 Coulombs, indicating a marginally higher permeability compared to those with admixtures. Acid-cured concrete, both in hydrochloric (M4–M6) and sulfuric acid (M7–M9), showed slightly higher total charges, indicating a higher permeability compared to normal curing. The highest charge was observed in M9 (2223 Coulombs at 28 days), and the lowest in M2 (2157 Coulombs at 28 days). The presence of admixtures generally resulted in lower chloride ion penetration, highlighting the role of admixtures in enhancing durability under aggressive curing conditions. Figure 9 shows the RCPT test.

    thumbnail of Figure 9
    Figure 9
    Shows the RCPT test.

    5. CONCLUSION

    The results from the various tests conducted on Portland Slag Cement (PSC) concrete mixtures under different curing conditions reveal important insights into the performance and durability of these mixes.

    Compressive Strength: The inclusion of admixtures (M2 and M5) consistently enhanced the compressive strength of concrete. At 28 days, M2 and M5 exhibited strengths of 29.18 MPa and 28.52 MPa, respectively, compared to conventional concrete (M1), which had a strength of 26.77 MPa. The increased strength with admixtures can be attributed to the improved hydration and bond formation that admixtures promote. Moreover, the strength of all mixes decreased over time under aggressive curing conditions (M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, and M9), but the admixture-containing mixes performed better than their counterparts without admixtures.

    Saturated Water Absorption and Effective Porosity: The results indicate that the use of admixtures (M2, M5, and M8) leads in a small decrease in both saturated water absorption and effective porosity. At 28 days, M2 had a lower absorption rate (2.97%) and lower porosity (5.82%) compared to M1 (3.02% and 5.88%, respectively). This indicates that admixtures improve the density and reduce the permeability of the concrete, making it more resistant to water ingress.

    Acid Attack Resistance: Concrete exposed to sulfuric acid showed weight and strength loss. The addition of admixtures helped reduce the extent of damage from acid exposure. For instance, at 28 days, M2 exhibited a loss of weight from sulfuric acid attack of 4.64%, which was slightly better than M1 (4.71%). Furthermore, M2 showed a smaller strength loss (5.72%) compared to M1 (5.80%), suggesting that admixtures contribute to enhancing the acid resistance of concrete.

    Sulfate Attack Resistance: Similar trends were observed under sulfate attack. M2, with admixtures, had lower strength loss compared to M1. At 28 days, M2 had a strength loss of 5.72%, compared to M1’s 5.80%. This demonstrates the beneficial effect of admixtures in improving the sulfate resistance of concrete.

    RCPT: The RCPT results indicate that concrete with admixtures (M2, M5, M8) showed lower chloride ion penetration. At 28 days, M2 had a total charge of 2157 Coulombs, which was lower than M1 (2179 Coulombs), suggesting that admixtures reduce the permeability to chloride ions and enhance the durability of concrete against chloride-induced corrosion.

    In conclusion, the use of admixtures in Portland Slag Cement concrete improves key performance indicators such as compressive strength, water absorption, porosity, and resistance to acid, sulfate, and chloride attack. Acid curing, however, appears to slightly increase the permeability and weight loss due to acid attack, but admixtures still provide better overall durability compared to mixes without admixtures.

    6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

    • [1] KUMAR, R.J., SINGH, R.C., “Optimized flyash in concrete for grade M15, M20, M25, M30, M35, M40 using Portland slag cement”, International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, v. 5, n. 6, pp. 2787–2795, 2017.
    • [2] WU, X., HONG, Z., HOU, X., et al., “Study on steel slag and fly ash composite Portland cement”, Cement and Concrete Research, v. 29, n. 7, pp. 1103–1106, 1999. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00244-0.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00244-0
    • [3] BAYRAKTAR, O., “The possibility of fly ash and blast furnace slag disposal by using these environmental wastes as substitutes in portland cement”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 191, n. 9, pp. 560, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7741-4. PubMed PMID: 31407116.
      » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7741-4
    • [4] VAN DER LUGT, G., SCHOLTEN, L., “Radon emanation from concrete and the influence of using flyash in cement”, The Science of the Total Environment, v. 45, pp. 143–150, 1985. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(85)90214-1. PubMed PMID: 3853271.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(85)90214-1
    • [5] LEE, T.-C., RAO, M., “Recycling municipal incinerator fly- and scrubber-ash into fused slag for the substantial replacement of cement in cement-mortars”, Waste Management, v. 29, n. 6, pp. 1952–1959, 2009. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.01.002. PubMed PMID: 19216067.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.01.002
    • [6] NAVEEN ARASU, A., MUTHUSAMY, N., NATARAJAN, B., et al., “Optimization of high performance concrete composites by using nano materials”, Research on Engineering Structures and Materials, v. 9, n. 3, pp. 843–859, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.17515/resm2022.602ma1213.
      » https://doi.org/10.17515/resm2022.602ma1213
    • [7] ZHAO, Y., SOLTANI, A., TAHERI, A., et al., “Application of slag-cement and fly ash for strength development in cemented paste backfills”, Minerals, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 22, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/min9010022.
      » https://doi.org/10.3390/min9010022
    • [8] LI, J., ZHANG, S., WANG, Q., et al., “Feasibility of using fly ash-slag-based binder for mine backfilling and its associated leaching risks”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, v. 400, pp. 123191, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123191. PubMed PMID: 32593019.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.123191
    • [9] HE, Y., CHEN, Q., QI, C., et al., “Lithium slag and fly ash-based binder for cemented fine tailings backfill”, Journal of Environmental Management, v. 248, pp. 109282, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109282. PubMed PMID: 31374435.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109282
    • [10] SHANKAR, S.S., NATARAJAN, M., ARASU, A., “Exploring the strength and durability characteristics of high-performance fibre reinforced concrete containing nanosilica”, Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 142, 2024.
    • [11] MUÑOZ-PÉREZ, S.P., LOZANO-SÁNCHEZ, J.J., RAMÍREZ-SILVA, D.M., et al., “Use and effect of fly ash in concrete: a literature review”, Revista Facultad de Ingenieria Universidad de Antioquia, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20230927.
      » https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20230927
    • [12] TEIXEIRA, E., CAMÕES, A., BRANCO, F., et al., “Recycling of biomass and coal fly ash as cement replacement material and its effect on hydration and carbonation of concrete”, Waste Management, v. 94, pp. 39–48, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.044. PubMed PMID: 31279394.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.044
    • [13] HEMALATHA, T., RAMASWAMY, A., “A review on fly ash characteristics: towards promoting high volume utilization in developing sustainable concrete”, Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 147, pp. 546–559, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.114.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.114
    • [14] FOŘT, J., ŠÁL, J., ŽÁK, J., et al., “Assessment of wood-based fly ash as alternative cement replacement”, Sustainability, v. 12, n. 22, pp. 9580, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su12229580.
      » https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229580
    • [15] LIAO, W., MA, H., SUN, H., et al., “Potential large-volume beneficial use of low-grade fly ash in magnesia-phosphate cement based materials”, Fuel, v. 209, pp. 490–497, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.028.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.08.028
    • [16] ALAJ, A., KRELANI, V., NUMAO, T., “Effect of class F fly ash on strength properties of concrete”, Civil Engineering Journal, v. 9, n. 9, pp. 2249–2258, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-09-011.
      » https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-09-011
    • [17] XU, G., SHI, X., “Characteristics and applications of fly ash as a sustainable construction material: a state-of-the-art review”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 136, pp. 95–109, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.010.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.010
    • [18] HEFNI, Y., ZAHER, Y.A.E., WAHAB, M.A., “Influence of activation of fly ash on the mechanical properties of concrete”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 172, pp. 728–734, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.021.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.021
    • [19] YU, J., LU, C., LEUNG, C.K.Y., et al., “Mechanical properties of green structural concrete with ultrahigh-volume fly ash”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 147, pp. 510–518, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.188.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.188
    • [20] AMRAN, M., DEBBARMA, S., OZBAKKALOGLU, T., “Fly ash-based eco-friendly geopolymer concrete: a critical review of the long-term durability properties”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 270, pp. 121857, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121857.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121857
    • [21] AKBULUT, Z.F., YAVUZ, D., TAWFIK, T.A., “Enhancing concrete performance through sustainable utilization of class-c and class-F fly ash: a comprehensive review”, Sustainability, v. 16, n. 12, pp. 4905, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su16124905.
      » https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124905
    • [22] FERNANDO, S., GUNASEKARA, C., LAW, D., et al., “Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of fly ash-rice husk ash blended alkali-activated concrete”, Journal of Environmental Management, v. 295, pp. 113140, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140. PubMed PMID: 34198175.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113140
    • [23] STEVANOVIĆ, D., KARANAC, M., ILIĆ, M., et al., “Fly ash from coal power plants and its application: a step towards green building”, Metallurgical and Materials Data, v. 1, n. 4, pp. 117–123, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.30544/MMD28.
      » https://doi.org/10.30544/MMD28
    • [24] SHARMA, V., DASH, S., GUPTA, P., “Comprehensive review of fly ash: environmental impact and applications”, Environmental Quality Management, v. 34, n. 2, e22338, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22338.
      » https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22338
    • [25] LAORY, I., EKAPUTRI, J.J, KUSBIANTORO, A., et al., “Evaluating the socio-economic effects of fly ash and agricultural waste on the construction sector”, Journal Integration of Management Studies, v. 2, n. 2, pp. 196–204, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v2i2.232.
      » https://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v2i2.232
    • [26] AHMARUZZAMAN, M., “A review on the utilization of fly ash”, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, v. 36, n. 3, pp. 327–363, 2010. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.003.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.003
    • [27] ABDELLATIEF, M., ELRAHMAN, M.A., ELGENDY, G., et al., “Response surface methodology-based modelling and optimization of sustainable UHPC containing ultrafine fly ash and metakaolin”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 388, pp. 131696, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131696.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131696
    • [28] ELGENDY, ELAGAMY, A., SHERIF, M., et al., “Laboratory evaluation of green concrete mixes containing high percentages of steel slag coarse aggregate”, Mansoura Engineering Journal, v. 40, n. 5, pp. 29–37, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.21608/bfemu.2020.96396.
      » https://doi.org/10.21608/bfemu.2020.96396
    • [29] BARIŞ, K.E., TANAÇAN, L., “Earth of Datca: development of pozzolanic activity with steam curing”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 139, pp. 212–220, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.069.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.069
    • [30] ABDELLATIEF, M., AL-TAM, S.M., ELEMAM, W.E., et al., “Development of ultra-high-performance concrete with low environmental impact integrated with metakaolin and industrial wastes”, Case Studies in Construction Materials, v. 18, e01724, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01724.
      » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01724
    • [31] TAHWIA, A.M., ELGENDY, G.M., AMIN, M., “Effect of environmentally friendly materials on steel corrosion resistance of sustainable UHPC in marine environment”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, v. 82, n. 2, pp. 133–149, 2022, https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO202211935444510.page, accessed in June, 2025.
    • [32] NAIK, T.R., MORICONI, G., “Environmental-friendly durable concrete made with recycled materials for sustainable concrete construction”, In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Development of Cement, Concrete and Concrete Structures, v. 5, n. 7, Toronto, Ontario, Oct. 2005.
    • [33] VARGHESE, A., ANAND, N., ARULRAJ G, P., “Influence of fibers on bond strength of concrete exposed to elevated temperature”, Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, v. 33, n. 14, pp. 1521–1543, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1602889.
      » https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1602889
    • [34] THANARAJ, D.P., N, A., ARULRAJ, P., “Experimental investigation of mechanical properties and physical characteristics of concrete under standard fire exposure”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, v. 17, n. 5, pp. 878–903, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2018-0159.
      » https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2018-0159

    Publication Dates

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

    History

    • Received
      16 Mar 2025
    • Accepted
      02 June 2025
    Creative Common - by 4.0
    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    vertical_align_top show_chart
    location_on
    Laboratório de Hidrogênio, Coppe - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, em cooperação com a Associação Brasileira do Hidrogênio, ABH2 Av. Moniz Aragão, 207, 21941-594, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, Tel: +55 (21) 3938-8791 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
    E-mail: revmateria@gmail.com
    rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
    Reportar erro