IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7194-d298327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strength, Carbon Footprint and Cost Considerations of Mortar Blends with High Volume Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

Author

Listed:
  • Chiu Chuen Onn

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Kim Hung Mo

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Mohammed K. H. Radwan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Wen Hong Liew

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Chee Guan Ng

    (Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of Malaya, IGS Building, No. C308, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

  • Sumiani Yusoff

    (Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of Malaya, IGS Building, No. C308, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

Abstract

Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) is a by-product obtained from the iron making process and has suitable properties to be utilized as high volume cement replacement to produce sustainable concrete. This study focuses on investigating the influence of GGBFS replacement level (0%–70%) and water/binder ratio (0.45 and 0.65) on the performance of cement mortar blends. In order to characterize the engineering performance, the compressive strength of the mortar blends was evaluated. Whereas to ascertain the carbon footprint, environmental life cycle assessment was conducted. Besides the compressive strength and carbon footprint, the materials cost for each mortar blends was computed. Based on the compressive strength/carbon footprint ratio analysis, it was found that increased replacement level of GGBFS gave better performance while the cost efficiency analysis shows that suggested GGBFS replacement level of up to 50%. Overall, in considering the strength performance, carbon footprint and materials cost, the recommended GGBFS replacement level for cement blends is 50%. In addition, when the binder content is kept constant, mortar blends with lower water/binder ratio is preferable when considering the same parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiu Chuen Onn & Kim Hung Mo & Mohammed K. H. Radwan & Wen Hong Liew & Chee Guan Ng & Sumiani Yusoff, 2019. "Strength, Carbon Footprint and Cost Considerations of Mortar Blends with High Volume Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7194-:d:298327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7194/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7194/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Taehyoung Kim & Sungho Tae & Chang U Chae, 2016. "Analysis of Environmental Impact for Concrete Using LCA by Varying the Recycling Components, the Compressive Strength and the Admixture Material Mixing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed K. H. Radwan & Chiu Chuen Onn & Kim Hung Mo & Soon Poh Yap & Ren Jie Chin & Sai Hin Lai, 2022. "Sustainable ternary cement blends with high-volume ground granulated blast furnace slag–fly ash," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 4751-4785, April.
    2. Slobodan Šupić & Vesna Bulatović & Mirjana Malešev & Vlastimir Radonjanin & Ivan Lukić, 2021. "Sustainable Masonry Mortars with Fly Ash, Blast Furnace Granulated Slag and Wheat Straw Ash," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Jan Pešta & Markéta Šerešová & Vladimír Kočí, 2020. "Carbon Footprint Assessment of Construction Waste Packaging Using the Package-to-Product Indicator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Shamir Sakir & Sudharshan N. Raman & Md. Safiuddin & A. B. M. Amrul Kaish & Azrul A. Mutalib, 2020. "Utilization of By-Products and Wastes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Structural Mortar for Sustainable Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-35, May.
    5. Alisson Mendes Rodrigues & Fabiana Pereira da Costa & Suellen Lisboa Dias Beltrão & Jucielle Veras Fernandes & Romualdo Rodrigues Menezes & Gelmires de Araújo Neves, 2021. "Development of Eco-Friendly Mortars Produced with Kaolin Processing Waste: Durability Behavior Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Jan Fořt & Jiří Šál & Jaroslav Žák & Robert Černý, 2020. "Assessment of Wood-Based Fly Ash as Alternative Cement Replacement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Žigart, Maja & Kovačič Lukman, Rebeka & Premrov, Miroslav & Žegarac Leskovar, Vesna, 2018. "Environmental impact assessment of building envelope components for low-rise buildings," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 501-512.
    2. Taehyoung Kim & Sanghyo Lee & Chang U. Chae & Hyoungjae Jang & Kanghee Lee, 2017. "Development of the CO 2 Emission Evaluation Tool for the Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Habibi, Alireza & Bamshad, Omid & Golzary, Abooali & Buswell, Richard & Osmani, Mohammed, 2024. "Biases in life cycle assessment of circular concrete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    4. Lahiba Imtiaz & Sardar Kashif-ur-Rehman & Wesam Salah Alaloul & Kashif Nazir & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Fahid Aslam & Muhammad Ali Musarat, 2021. "Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, Geopolymer Concrete, and Recycled Aggregate-Based Geopolymer Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Jaehyun Lee & Taegyu Lee & Jaewook Jeong & Jaemin Jeong, 2020. "Engineering, Durability, and Sustainability Properties Analysis of High-Volume, PCC Ash-Based Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7194-:d:298327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.