Production of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete with Low Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint Using Supplementary Cementitious Materials Instead of Silica Fume: A Review

Mays A. Hamad, Mohammed Nasr, Ali Shubbar, Zainab Al-Khafaji, Zainab Al Masoodi, Osamah Al-Hashimi, Patryk Kot, Rafid Alkhaddar and Khalid Hashim
Additional contact information
Mays A. Hamad: Building and Construction Engineering Technology Department, Al-Mustaqbal University College, Hillah 51001, Iraq
Mohammed Nasr: Technical Institute of Babylon, Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University (ATU), Babylon 51015, Iraq
Ali Shubbar: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
Zainab Al-Khafaji: Al-Furrat Al-Awsat Distribution Foundation, Ministry of Oil, Babylon 51001, Iraq
Zainab Al Masoodi: National Center for Construction Laboratories (NCCL), Ministry of Construction and Housing, Babylon 51001, Iraq
Osamah Al-Hashimi: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
Patryk Kot: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
Rafid Alkhaddar: Dean of Academic Affairs, Oryx Universal College in Partnership with LJMU, Doha P.O. Box 12253, Qatar
Khalid Hashim: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK

Energies, 2021, vol. 14, issue 24, 1-26

Abstract: The increase in cement production as a result of growing demand in the construction sector means an increase in energy consumption and CO 2 emissions. These emissions are estimated at 7% of the global production of CO 2 . Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) has excellent mechanical and durability characteristics. Nevertheless, it is costly and affects the environment due to its high amount of cement, which may reach 800–1000 kg/m 3 . In order to reduce the cement content, silica fume (SF) was utilized as a partial alternative to cement in the production of UHPC. Nevertheless, SF is very expensive. Therefore, the researchers investigated the use of supplementary cementitious materials cheaper than SF. Very limited review investigates addressed the impact of such materials on different properties of UHPC in comparison to that of SF. Thus, this study aims to summarize the effectiveness of using some common supplementary cementitious materials, including fly ashes (FA), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin (MK) and rice husk ashes (RHA) in the manufacturing of UHPC, and comparing the performance of each material with that of SF. The comparison among these substances was also discussed. It has been found that RHA is considered a successful alternative to SF to produce UHPC with similar or even higher properties than SF. Moreover, FA, GGBS and MK can be utilized in combination with SF (as a partial substitute of SF) as a result of having less pozzolanic activity than SF.

Keywords: ground granulated blast furnace slag; metakaolin; rice husk ashes; silica fume; ultra-high-performance concrete (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8291/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8291/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8291-:d:698502

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().