Mechanical performance and sustainability of GGBS-blended cementitious mortars for resilient construction

Abstract

Background:

Cement production is a significant source of global CO₂ emissions, driving the need for sustainable alternatives in construction. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) has emerged as a promising supplementary cementitious material; however, its performance across wide replacement ranges and its combined environmental and economic implications remain insufficiently characterised, particularly in hot and arid climatic contexts such as the Gulf region.

Methods:

Nine mortar mixes incorporating GGBS as a partial replacement for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) were prepared at replacement levels ranging from 5% to 100%. Compressive and flexural strength were assessed at 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analyses were conducted to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of each mix over its service life.

Results:

Replacement levels between 20% and 30% yielded optimal compressive strength, surpassing the OPC control at 28 days. Higher replacement levels enhanced flexural strength, though the highest recorded values require further validation. LCA results confirmed a progressive reduction in CO₂ emissions with increasing GGBS content, while LCC analysis demonstrated improved cost efficiency relative to the OPC reference.

Discussion:

A 30% GGBS replacement level is identified as the optimal balance between mechanical performance, environmental benefit, and economic efficiency. These findings support the adoption of GGBS-blended mortars as viable, sustainable alternatives to conventional OPC-based construction materials in the Gulf region and comparable climatic environments.

1 Introduction

Conventional cement production within the building industry constitutes a substantial source of carbon pollution, releasing 8% of global CO₂ emissions (Habert et al., 2020). Portland cement clinker production requires limestones calcination at a temperature exceeding 1,450 °C. Therefore, this process releases process CO₂ (from CaCO₃ decomposition) and combustion CO₂ from fossil fuels. To address this challenge, researchers and industry professionals are exploring the implementation of partial cement replacements using alternative materials such as slag and fly ash to develop more sustainable concrete mixes. Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) might be a solution to lower binders’ clinker content without affecting the structural performance of the material thus offering a technical and economical viable alternative to classic binder. Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS) is one of the most commonly alternatives that can be used in binders. GGBS is a byproduct of pig iron production. It exhibits latent hydraulic properties activated by the release of calcium hydroxide during ordinary Portland cement hydration. It produces additional calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel and contributes to long term strength gain and densification of the microstructural. This strategy has the potential to reduce waste by 30%–80% and decrease CO₂ emissions by up to 40% per ton of cementitious material (Imbabi et al., 2012).

Despite extensive research on GGBS as a supplementary cementitious material, limited studies have investigated its performance over a wide replacement range in mortar systems while simultaneously integrating mechanical, environmental, and economic assessments under Gulf-region material supply conditions. In addition, most available studies focus on isolated performance indicators rather than providing a comprehensive framework for practical mix optimization.

This study addresses this gap by evaluating nine OPC–GGBS mortar mixes with replacement levels ranging from 0% to 100% using Kuwait-sourced GGBS Grade 120. The investigation combines compressive and flexural strength measurements with life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis to identify an optimum replacement level that balances structural performance, carbon reduction, and economic efficiency. The findings aim to support practical implementation of sustainable mortar systems in the Gulf region.

These aspects collectively distinguish this study from prior investigations that typically address isolated performance indicators or narrower replacement ranges.

2 Literature review

As sustainability becomes a bigger priority, the construction industry explored the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), a range of industrial and agricultural byproducts, as partial replacement when they would otherwise go to waste. These include fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin (MK), rice husk ash (RHA), silica fume, ceramic waste powder, and waste glass. Their reuse not only aids in reduced CO₂ levels but also offers a practical and eco-friendly alternative to ordinary cement (Xia et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023; Huertas and Choque, 2026).

Aïtcin (Aïtcin, 2000), one of the researchers that explored this topic, compared historical and modern cement, noting that while modern cements offer higher early strength due to finer particles and higher C₃S content, they often lack long-term durability. Similarly, Bentz (Bentz, 2008) emphasized how early-age behaviors like shrinkage and poor curing conditions can negatively affect overall performance.

Pozzolanic materials like fly ash, rice husk ash, and metakaolin have shown great results regarding long term durability based on studies by Panesar and Zhang (Panesar and Zhang, 2020) which confirmed that SCMs such as fly ash, silica fume, and metakaolin can enhance compressive strength (by 15%–25%) and improve resistance to sulfate attack and permeability by over 50%.

GGBS, in particular, is a widely used alternative. Patil and Dwivedi (Pat et al., 2013) recommended keeping GGBS content around 20% for strength retention, while Shariq et al. (Shariq et al., 2010) reported that 40% replacement improves long-term strength. Studies by Amin et al. (Amin et al., 2022) and Bellum et al. (Bellum et al., 2022) demonstrated that combining GGBS with other SCMs like metakaolin and fly ash in geopolymer systems produces compressive strengths over 80 MPa and enhances overall durability.

Waste-derived materials have also shown potential as eco-friendly binders. Tayeh et al. (Tayeh et al., 2019) found that seashell ash can replace up to 20% of cement with minimal loss in strength and a noticeable gain in durability. Likewise, Xu et al. (Xu et al., 2021) and Tong et al. (Tong et al., 2024) demonstrated that incorporating ceramic waste powder or finely ground waste glass can reduce porosity and increase strength, particularly when used in the 10%–25% range.

Other byproducts like brick waste and sugarcane bagasse ash have been evaluated for their potential as SCMs. Mangi et al. (Mangi et al., 2017) and Naceri and Hamina (Naceri and Hamina, 2009) concluded that these materials can improve sustainability in mortar applications, though they require careful preprocessing due to their inconsistent composition.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Materials

3.1.1 Ordinary Portland cement

Type I Ordinary Portland Cement (Figure 1) was used as one of the binding materials in the mortar mix. This type of cement is well known for its general-purpose use, offering reliable strength, development and durability under normal construction conditions. It plays a critical role in the setting, hardening, and overall structural performance of the mortar (Singh et al., 2014; Neville, 1963). The cement was procured from a local Kuwaiti supplier and verified to conform to ASTM C150/C150M (ASTM, 2001).

FIGURE 1

3.1.2 Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS)

As a by-product of turning iron into steel in electric arc or basic oxygen furnaces, GGBS is a useful material for mortar applications (Figure 1). Its principal chemical constituents—calcium oxide (CaO), silicon dioxide (SiO₂), and aluminium oxide (Al₂O₃) — enable it to participate in secondary cementitious reactions in the presence of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂) released during OPC hydration, producing additional C–S–H and hydrotalcite-type phases (Lothenbach et al., 2011). In this study, GGBS Grade 120 was sourced from ACICO Group, Kuwait, and verified for conformance with ASTM C989/C989M (ASTM, 2014). Grade 120 slag achieves a slag activity index (SAI) exceeding 120% at 28 days relative to the reference cement mortar, confirming superior long-term cementitious performance. Its latent hydraulic activity contributes to progressive microstructural densification, improving both mechanical performance and durability of the mortar matrix.

3.1.3 Fine aggregate

Fine aggregate functions as an essential filler in mortar, including particles with a maximum dimension of 4.75 mm. These small particles constitute a substantial fraction of the mortar volume, so augmenting the density, cohesion, and overall structural integrity of the mixture (Neville, 1963). In this study, fine aggregate from a local provider and assessed it to ensure keeping with the physical specifications required for efficient mortar manufacturing’s characteristics were determined to be appropriate for obtaining the necessary mechanical performance and workability of the concrete following ASTM C778 standards (ASTM, 2006).

3.1.4 Water

A water to binder ratio of 0.5 was used in the mortar mix to ensure an effective balance between workability and mechanical performance. Water plays a crucial role in the chemical reactions involved in setting and hardening, while also determining the consistency and flow of the fresh mix. With a ratio of 0.5, sufficient moisture was available to initiate the necessary chemical reactions without leading to excessive porosity or shrinkage. The selected ratio contributed to the formation of a dense and cohesive matrix, enhancing the overall structural integrity of the mortar. The water used in the mix was carefully measured and added to maintain uniformity and ensure reliable strength development across all samples (ASTM Int ernational, 2020).

3.2 Methods

3.2.1 Mix proportions

Nine mortar mixes were proportioned with GGBS Grade 120 replacing OPC Type I at 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50%, and 100% by mass of total binder. The aggregate-to-binder ratio (A/B) was fixed at 2.5 in accordance with ASTM C109 (ASTM Int ernational, 2020), and the water-to-binder ratio (W/B) was held constant at 0.5 to maintain consistent workability and isolate the effect of GGBS content on mechanical performance and ensure direct comparability between mixes. While GGBS fineness and particle characteristics can influence water demand, Grade 120 GGBS exhibits a Blaine fineness broadly comparable to OPC, and a fixed W/B of 0.5 is consistent with standard mortar testing practice per ASTM C109. The water-to-binder ratio (W/B) was held constant at 0.5 to maintain consistent workability and isolate the effect of GGBS content on mechanical performance and ensure direct comparability between mixes. Fresh mortar workability was assessed visually during mixing and was observed to be uniform and consistent across all nine mixes at this W/B ratio. The baseline binder content of 512 kg/m³ was established from standard mortar proportions. Full mix proportions are presented in Table 1, 2.

3.2.2 Specimen preparation

To ensure homogeneity and workability, detailed mixing procedure was followed (Figure 2). Sand is made sure to be clean and dry to prevent excess moisture affecting the water-binder ratio. In a mechanical mixer, binder material was combined with fine aggregates and mix dried for at least 2 min to ensure uniform distribution of materials. While the dry materials are being mixed, water is added in a controlled manner, and the mixing continues for 3–4 min until a homogeneous and workable mortar consistency is achieved. The mixture is allowed to rest for 2 min to enable initial reactions between the materials. The final mixing cycle is performed for 1–2 min to ensure full homogeneity before transferring to molds. The number of samples depends on the number of mix designs (8 GGBS based mix +1 cement control mix = 9 total), the number of test types, and replicates per test (typically 3 for statistical reliability).

FIGURE 2

3.2.3 Casting and curing

The fresh mortar was cast into 50 × 50 × 50 mm cube molds (for compressive strength) and 40 × 40 × 160 mm prism molds (for flexural strength) in two layers, with each layer lightly vibrated on a vibrating table to ensure proper compaction and elimination of entrapped air voids (Figure 3). All molds were covered with polyethylene sheeting and left at ambient laboratory conditions (24 °C ± 2 °C) for 24 h. Specimens were then demolded and transferred to a water curing tank at 24 °C ± 2 °C, where they remained submerged until the relevant testing age.

FIGURE 3

3.2.4 Testing

3.2.4.1 Compressive strength of mortar

To evaluate mechanical properties for structural performance, the compressive strength test was carried out in compression testing machine as per ASTM C109 (ASTM Int ernational, 2020) to determine the material’s ability to resist axial loads and measure its load-bearing capacity before failure. The test is done on (50 × 50 × 50 mm) as seen in Figure 4 cube specimens for all nine mixes at ages of 7, 14, and 28 days. For each mix and age, the result reported represents the arithmetic mean of three replicate specimens. The coefficient of variation across replicates was within acceptable limits for standard mortar testing (typically ≤10%), confirming adequate repeatability; individual specimen values and standard deviations are recommended for inclusion in future revised data tables to enable complete statistical assessment.

FIGURE 4

3.2.4.2 Flexural strength of mortar

To determine the mortar’s ability to withstand tensile and bending forces in structures subjected to flexural stresses, the flexural strength test will be conducted in accordance to ASTM C348 (ASTM International, 2021). Flexural strength test is done on (40 × 40 × 160 mm) prism specimens at 28 days for all nine mixes (Figure 5). The specimens were subjected to a three-point bending test using a universal testing machine. The reported results are the average of three samples.

FIGURE 5

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Compressive strength development

At low replacement levels (5%–15%), OPC hydration dominates and Ca(OH)₂ availability exceeds the activation requirement of the limited slag, resulting in strength broadly comparable to the control.

At the optimal 20%–30% range, the quantity of activated GGBS is sufficient to generate a meaningful secondary C–S–H contribution that fills capillary pores and densifies the microstructure, producing the observed strength enhancement above the control.

At very high replacement levels (100%), the insufficient Ca(OH)₂ supply limits slag activation, reducing early-age strength despite the latent hydraulic potential of the slag.

While direct microstructural evidence (SEM, XRD, MIP) was not obtained in this study, the observed strength development trends are fully consistent with this established reaction sequence, as documented by Lothenbach et al. (Lothenbach et al., 2011).

Microstructural characterization is identified as a priority for future work to confirm these inferred mechanisms.

At 7 days, the 30% GGBS mix (M7) recorded the highest compressive strength of 20.82 MPa among all blended mixes, confirming that Grade 120 slag is sufficiently reactive to contribute meaningfully to early-age strength gain, a characteristic attributable to its high slag activity index (SAI > 120%). At 28 days, the 20% GGBS mix (M5) achieved the highest compressive strength across all mixes at 22.7 MPa, a 7.6% improvement over the OPC control (M9: 21.1 MPa), followed closely by M7 (22.35 MPa, +5.9%). These gains are likely attributed to the combined effect of continued OPC hydration and secondary C–S–H formation resulting from the latent hydraulic and pozzolanic activity of GGBS, which contributes to matrix densification and improved load transfer.

For each mix and age, the result reported represents the arithmetic mean of three replicate specimens. The coefficient of variation across replicates was within acceptable limits for standard mortar testing (typically ≤10%), confirming adequate repeatability; individual specimen values and standard deviations are recommended for inclusion in future revised data tables to enable complete statistical assessment.

It is also noted that M3 (10% GGBS) recorded a 14-day compressive strength of 12.7 MPa, marginally above the 7-day value (12.2 MPa) but below the 28-day value (14.4 MPa). This pattern is consistent with a transient retardation of hydration at low GGBS content: the dilution of OPC slightly suppresses early-age strength gain before secondary C–S–H formation and continued slag activation compensate at later ages. This value has been verified from original test records and is considered reliable within the inherent scatter of the ASTM C109 test method.

The 20%–30% replacement range was thus identified as optimal for 28-day compressive strength development, consistent with the findings of Patil and Dwivedi (Pat et al., 2013) and Shariq et al. (Shariq et al., 2010), who reported acceptable or enhanced strength development at comparable substitution levels. Notably, M7 (30% GGBS) also outperformed the control at 7 days, indicating that Grade 120 slag activates more rapidly than lower-grade products, likely due to its finer particle size distribution and higher glass content. Mixes with lower replacement levels (M2–M4: 5%–15% GGBS) tended to slightly underperform the control at early ages, possibly due to dilution of the OPC hydration products at these intermediate replacement levels without sufficient slag activation. The 100% GGBS mix (M1) recorded the lowest compressive strengths across all ages (12.1, 15.9, and 18.0 MPa at 7, 14, and 28 days, respectively), confirming that complete OPC replacement severely constrains early hydration owing to the absence of the alkali activator (Ca(OH)₂) required to initiate latent hydraulic reactions. Figure 6 shows that incorporating 30% GGBS (M7) yielded superior performance compared to the control mix (M9), achieving peak compressive strengths of 20.82 MPa at 7 days, 21.4 MPa at 14 days, and 22.35 MPa at 28 days, surpassing the control mix’s 21.1 MPa at 28 days. Similarly, the composite incorporating 20% GGBS (M5) also exhibited enhancement, achieving a peak compressive strength of 22.7 MPa at 28 days. According to this data, the best results for both early and late growth are achieved at a partial replacement rate of 20%–30%. However, for all curing times, mixtures with lower replacement levels (for example, 10–15) and especially the mixture containing 100% GGBS (M1) showed noticeably lower compression strengths, confirming that excessive replacement limits early hydration due to insufficient calcium hydroxide availability required for effective activation of slag reactions. While previous studies have shown that after 28 days, the slag mixture usually achieves 83%–89% of the strength of the regular slag, the current study shows that the improved sludge mixture not only matches but exceeds the strength of the traditional slag. The difference in severity may be caused by the characteristics of the substance or by the curing conditions. The findings together confirm that the 20%–30% partial substitution of GGBS is technically and environmentally viable strategy for producing durable, sustainable mortar with competitive mechanical performance under Gulf conditions.

FIGURE 6

4.2 Flexural strength at 28 days

The 28-day flexural strength results are presented in Table 3 and Figure 7. At low-to-moderate replacement levels, 28-day flexural strength remained broadly comparable to the OPC control (M9). M2 (5% GGBS, 2.73 MPa) and M6 (25% GGBS, 2.81 MPa) matched the control value closely, while M3 (10% GGBS, 2.36 MPa) and M4 (15% GGBS, 2.51 MPa) recorded minor reductions of approximately 11% and 6%, respectively. These reductions likely reflect a transient dilution effect: at intermediate replacement levels, the reduction in available OPC hydration products is not yet fully compensated by secondary C–S–H formation from slag activation, resulting in a marginally less dense paste matrix at 28 days. A marked and mechanistically significant increase was observed at higher replacement levels: M7 (30% GGBS) achieved 5.378 MPa, approximately twice the control, while M8 (50% GGBS) reached 8.546 MPa, significantly higher than the control value. The progressive improvement in flexural strength at higher GGBS replacement levels can be attributed to several interacting mechanisms. Secondary C–S–H formation from pozzolanic and latent hydraulic reactions progressively fills capillary pores, reducing porosity and increasing matrix density. This microstructural densification improves the interfacial transition zone between paste and aggregate, which is a critical locus of crack initiation under bending. Additionally, the refined pore structure inhibits crack propagation, contributing to higher energy absorption capacity under flexural loading. At 50% replacement, sufficient Ca(OH)₂ is available from residual OPC hydration to fully activate the slag, while the high slag content simultaneously promotes the formation of a dense, low-porosity binder matrix. Nevertheless, the exceptionally high value for M8 (8.546 MPa) is notably above the typical range for OPC–GGBS mortars reported in the literature, and the authors acknowledge that further microstructural characterization (e.g., SEM/EDX, MIP) and additional experimental replication are warranted to confirm this result and establish its governing mechanisms.

FIGURE 7

4.3 LCA methodology and system boundary

However, end-of-life modules (C1–C4) deconstruction, waste processing, and disposal) are excluded from the primary LCA, representing a recognized limitation of this cradle-to-site study. Incorporating demolition and waste processing emissions in future work would provide a more complete lifecycle picture, though the exclusion is consistent with the intended application of the results at the material specification and procurement stage. The excluded stages are partially addressed indirectly in the LCC maintenance model through the extended service-life assumptions associated with improved GGBS durability.

From the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) Database v3.0 (Hammond and Jones, 2019), emission factors (EF) were sourced for this paper. The CO₂ intensity of OPC (0.820 kg CO₂e/kg) presents the global average for CEM I clinker. The CO₂ intensity of GGBS (0.052 kg CO₂e/kg) includes only granulation, drying, and grinding, with blast-furnace process emissions allocated to the pig iron co-product per ISO 14044 system expansion rules, a factor of approximately 16× lower than OPC. Transport emissions used the ECTA truck factor of 0.0962 kg CO₂/tonne·km (European Clean Transport Association ECTA, 2011), with distances representing Kuwait supply-chain conditions: 50 km for OPC (local Kuwaiti supplier), 20 km for GGBS (ACICO Group), and 30 km for fine aggregate (local quarry).

All nine mortar mixes CO₂ emissions are shown in Table 4. The control OPC mix (M9) produces 436.8 CO₂e/m³, of which production-stage emissions account for 430.5 kg CO₂e/m³ (98.6% of total). Transport emissions are minor (6.28 kg CO₂e/m³, 1.4%), indicating that binder composition is the dominant factor influencing embodied carbon in mortar production.

CO₂e emissions decrease with increasing GGBS content, reflecting the 16× difference in CO₂ intensity between OPC and GGBS. At 30% GGBS (M7), total emissions are 318.4 kg CO₂e/m³, a 27.1% reduction. At 50% GGBS (M8), emissions reach 239.5 kg CO₂e/m³ (45.2% reduction). The 100% GGBS mix (M1) achieves the lowest emissions at 42.1 kg CO₂e/m³ (90.4% reduction) but is mechanically non-viable as a structural binder.

4.4 LCC analysis

This relationship is a simplifying assumption adopted to reflect reported improvements in durability-related properties of GGBS systems—specifically, reduced chloride permeability, lower water absorption, and enhanced sulphate resistance documented in the literature (Hammond and Jones, 2019; European Clean Transport Association ECTA, 2011; International Organization for Standardization, 2017) in the absence of project-specific long-term maintenance data for Kuwait conditions.

The authors acknowledge that this assumption requires further empirical validation and that the LCC sensitivity to this parameter should be considered when interpreting results.

The full LCC results can be seen in the following Table 5. M9 has a total LCC of USD 141.88/m³ (material: USD 66.69; maintenance NPV: USD 75.19). M7 total LCC falls to USD 130.76/m³, a 7.8% saving, driven by the lower unit cost of GGBS and reduced maintenance expenditure. The cost-strength index (28-day compressive strength divided by total LCC) for M7 is 0.1709 MPa/(USD/m³), compared with 0.1487 for M9 (14.9% improvement) proving that M7 is the most cost-effective mix.

5 Conclusion

This study evaluated nine OPC–GGBS mortar mixes (0%–100% replacement) for mechanical performance, embodied carbon, and whole-life cost under Kuwait conditions. The key findings are as follows. At 28 days, the 20% GGBS mix (M5) achieved the highest compressive strength of 22.7 MPa (+7.6% vs. OPC control), and the 30% GGBS mix (M7) reached 22.35 MPa (+5.9%), confirming that the 20%–30% replacement range is optimal for compressive strength. Flexural strength increased substantially at higher replacement levels, with M7 and M8 reaching 5.38 MPa and 8.55 MPa respectively; the M8 value requires further microstructural validation. LCA results show that a 30% GGBS replacement reduces embodied CO₂ by 27.1% (318.4 vs. 436.8 kg CO₂e/m³), while LCC analysis indicates a 7.8% whole-life cost saving over 50 years (USD 130.76 vs. USD 141.88/m³). The 30% GGBS mix (M7) is identified as the recommended optimum, balancing structural performance, carbon reduction, and economic efficiency. Full OPC replacement (M1) is mechanically non-viable under normal curing, confirming the necessity of alkaline activation for high-slag systems. Future work should address microstructural characterization, long-term durability testing, and statistical validation of the observed flexural strength trends.

References

• 1

  AïtcinP.-C. (2000). Cements of yesterday and today: concrete of tomorrow. Cem. Concr. Res.30 (9), 1349–1359. 10.1016/s0008-8846(00)00365-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  Al-AmoudiO.Al-KuttiW.AhmadS.MaslehuddinM. (2009). Correlation between compressive strength and certain durability indices of plain and blended cement concretes. Cem. Concr. Compos.31, 672–676. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.05.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AminM.ElsakhawyY.Abu el-hassanK.AbdelsalamB. A. (2022). Behavior evaluation of sustainable high strength geopolymer concrete based on fly ash, metakaolin, and slag. Case Stud. Constr. Mater.16, e00976. 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e00976

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  ASTMC. (2001). ASTM C150: standard specification for Portland cement. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. West Conshohocken PA.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  ASTM (2006). ASTM C778: standard specification for standard sand. Annu. West Conshohocken, PA: Book ASTM Stand.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  ASTMC.989 (2014). Standard specification for slag cement for use in concrete and mortars. Pa. U. S. A. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  ASTM International (2020). Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM C109C109M. no. ASTM C109/C109M.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  ASTM International (2021). Standard test method for flexural strength of hydraulic-cement mortars, C348. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BellumR. R.Al KhazalehM.PillaR. K.ChoudharyS.VenkateshC. (2022). Effect of slag on strength, durability and microstructural characteristics of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil.7 (1), 25. 10.1007/s41024-022-00163-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BentzD. P. (2008). A review of early-age properties of cement-based materials. Cem. Concr. Res.38 (2), 196–204. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  European Clean Transport Association (ECTA) (2011). “Guidelines for measuring and managing CO2 emission from freight transport operations,” in European clean transport association, Brussels.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  HabertG.De LacaillerieJ. D.RousselN. (2011). An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J. Clean. Prod.19 (11), 1229–1238. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  HabertG.MillerS. A.JohnV. M.ProvisJ. L.FavierA.HorvathA.et al (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.1 (11), 559–573. 10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  HammondG.JonesC. (2019). Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE) database v3.0. Bath, Bath: University of.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  HuertasJ.ChoqueB. (2026). Structural behaviour of polymer cement mortar as adherent for clay bricks. Int. J. Struct. Eng.16 (1), 73–84. 10.1504/ijstructe.2026.151689

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  ImbabiM. S.CarriganC.McKennaS. (2012). Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.1 (2), 194–216. 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  International Organization for Standardization (2006). Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO 14044, no. ISO 14044.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  International Organization for Standardization (2017). Buildings and constructed assets — service life planning — part 5: life-cycle costing. ISO 15686-5, no. ISO 15686-5.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  LothenbachB.ScrivenerK.HootonR. (2011). Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res.41 (12), 1244–1256. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.12.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  MangiS. A.JamaluddinN.Wan IbrahimM. H.AbdullahA. H.Abdul AwalA. S. M.SohuS.et al (2017). “Utilization of sugarcane bagasse ash in concrete as partial replacement of cement,” in Presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Johor Bahru, Malaysia: IOP Publishing.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  NaceriA.HaminaM. C. (2009). Use of waste brick as a partial replacement of cement in mortar. Waste Manag.29 (8), 2378–2384. 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.03.026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  NevilleA. M. (1963). Properties of concrete. India: Pearson Education India.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  PanesarD. K.ZhangR. (2020). Performance comparison of cement replacing materials in concrete: limestone fillers and supplementary cementing materials–A review. Constr. Build. Mater.251, 118866. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118866

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  PatilY. O.PatilP.DwivediA. K. (2013). GGBS as partial replacement of OPC in cement concrete–An experimental study. Int. J. Sci. Res.2 (11), 189–191.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  ShariqM.PrasadJ.MasoodA. (2010). Effect of GGBFS on time dependent compressive strength of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.24 (8), 1469–1478. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.01.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  SinghM.SiddiqueR. (2014). Strength properties and micro-structural properties of concrete containing coal bottom ash as partial replacement of fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater.50, 246–256. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  TayehB. A.HasaniyahM. W.ZeyadA.YusufM. O. (2019). Properties of concrete containing recycled seashells as cement partial replacement: a review. J. Clean. Prod.237, 117723. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117723

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  TongG.PangJ.ShenJ.TangB.JiangZ.LiB.et al (2024). Response tests on the effects of particle size of waste glass sand and glass powder on the mechanical and durability performance of concrete. Sci. Rep.14 (1), 25445. 10.1038/s41598-024-76164-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  WangZ.GongF.MaekawaK. (2023). Multi-scale and multi-chemo-physics lifecycle evaluation of structural concrete under environmental and mechanical impacts. J. Intell. Constr.1 (1), 1–18. 10.26599/jic.2023.9180003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  XiaP.KhanS.HassamM.SohaibM.GongF.ZhaoY. (2024). Optimal utilization of low-quality construction waste and industrial byproducts in sustainable recycled concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.428, 136362. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136362

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  XuK.HuangW.ZhangL.FuS.ChenM.DingS.et al (2021). Mechanical properties of low-carbon ultrahigh-performance concrete with ceramic tile waste powder. Constr. Build. Mater.287, 123036. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article