Calcium-Based Binders in Concrete or Soil Stabilization: Challenges, Problems, and Calcined Clay as Partial Replacement to Produce Low-Carbon Cement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Cement–Soil Stabilization
3. Lime–Soil Stabilization
4. Problems of Calcium-Based Binders
5. Alternatives and Partial Replacement by Calcined Clay
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
References
- Onyelowe, K.; Okafor, F.O. A Comparative Review of Soil Modification Methods. ARPN J. Earth Sci. 2012, 1, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, M.A.; Joer, H.A.; Sim, W.H.; Randolph, M.F. Effect of Cement Type on Shear Behavior of Cemented Calcareous Soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002, 128, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sizirici, B.; Fseha, Y.; Cho, C.S.; Yildiz, I.; Byon, Y.J. A Review of Carbon Footprint Reduction in Construction Industry, from Design to Operation. Materials 2021, 14, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kiecana, M.; Kanty, P.; Auyńska, K. Optimal Control Time Evaluation for Dry DSM Soil-Cement Composites. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Moscow, Russia; 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gidday, B.G.; Mittal, S. Improving the Characteristics of Dispersive Subgrade Soils Using Lime. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldovino, J.A.; Moreira, E.B.; Teixeira, W.; Izzo, R.L.S.; Rose, J.L. Effects of Lime Addition on Geotechnical Properties of Sedimentary Soil in Curitiba, Brazil. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2018, 10, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locat, J.; Tremblay, H.; Leroueil, S. Mechanical and Hydraulic Behaviour of a Soft inorganic Clay Treated with Lime. Can. Geotech. J. 1996, 33, 654–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arman, A.; Munfakh, G.A. Lime Stabilization of Organic Soils. Highw. Res. Rec. 1972, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
- Choquette, M.; Bérubé, M.A.; Locat, J. Mineralogical and Microtextural Changes Associated with Lime Stabilization of Marine Clays from Eastern Canada. Appl. Clay Sci. 1987, 2, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhuria, N.R.; Sachan, A. Shear Strength and Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation Behaviour of Cement-Treated Slurry-Consolidated Soft Soil. Curr. Sci. 2014, 106, 972–979. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, G.; Tsuchida, T.; Athapaththu, A.M.R.G. Engineering Behavior of Cement-Treated Marine Dredged Clay during Early and Later Stages of Curing. Eng. Geol. 2016, 209, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horpibulsuk, S.; Phojan, W.; Suddeepong, A.; Chinkulkijniwat, A.; Liu, M.D. Strength Development in Blended Cement Admixed Saline Clay. Appl. Clay Sci. 2012, 55, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chan, C.; Abdullah, S.H. Settlement behaviour of a Cement—Stabilised Malaysian Clay. In Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Alington, VA, USA, 11–16 August 2006; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Xu, L. Freeze-thaw performance of a cement-treated expansive soil. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2020, 170, 102926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, T.S.K.; Hwa, K.Y. Architecting Hierarchal Zn3V2O8/P-RGO Nanostructure: Electrochemical Determination of Anti-Viral Drug Azithromycin in Biological Samples Using SPCE. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 439, 135591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gautam, S.; Kumar, A.; Vashistha, V.K.; Das, D.K. Phyto-Assisted Synthesis and Characterization of V2 O5 Nanomaterial and Their Electrochemical and Antimicrobial Investigations. Nano Life 2020, 10, 2050003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartner, E. Industrially Interesting Approaches to “Low-CO2 ” Cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1489–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrew, R.M. Global CO2 Emissions from Cement Production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2018, 10, 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, J.; Hua, Y.; Ye, J.; Xu, S.; Liu, Z. CO2 Emissions Accounting and Carbon Peak Prediction of China’s Papermaking Industry. Forests 2022, 13, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, C.D.; Novoa, R.S.A.; Ogle, S.; Smith, K.A.; Rochette, P.; Wirth, T.C. N2O Emission from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from and urea application. Intergov. Panel Clim. Chang. (IPCC) 2006, 4, 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- The European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU). Activity Report, 1st ed.; CEMBUREAU: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew, R.M. Global CO2 Emissions from Cement Production, 1928–2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2019, 11, 1675–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2011; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Nielsen, C.; He, K. An Inventory of Primary Air Pollutants and CO2 Emissions from Cement Production in China, 1990–2020. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stafford, F.N.; Raupp-Pereira, F.; Labrincha, J.A.; Hotza, D. Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of Cement: A Brazilian Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 1293–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deja, J.; Uliasz-Bochenczyk, A.; Mokrzycki, E. CO2 Emissions from Polish Cement Industry. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2010, 4, 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, G.; Madugu, A.I. Assessment of Environmental Impact on Air Quality by Cement Industry and Mitigating Measures: A Case Study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cement Sustainability Initiative. Cement Industry Energy and CO2 Performance: Getting the Numbers Right (GNR); World Business Council for Sustainable Development wbcsd: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lothenbach, B.; Scrivener, K.; Hooton, R.D. Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darange, R.; Adesina, A.; Das, S. Feasibility Study on the Sustainable Utilization of Uncalcined Clay Soils as Low-Cost Binders. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croft, J.B. The Influence of Soil Mineralogical Composition on Cement Stabilization. Geotechnique 1967, 17, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bushra, I.; Robinson, R.G. Consolidation Behaviour of a Stabilised Marine Clay Soil. Proc Indian Geotech. Conf. 2009, 5, 431–434. [Google Scholar]
- Amed, K.; Ouedraogo, J.; Aubert, J.; Tribout, C.; Escadeillas, G. Is Stabilization of Earth Bricks using Low Cement or Lime Contents Relevant ? Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, 117578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalid, U.; Liao, C.C.; Ye, G.-L.; Yadav, S.K. Sustainable Improvement of Soft Marine Clay using Low Cement Content: A multi-scale Experimental Investigation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 191, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, S.P.; Tabatabai, M.A. Effect of Tillage and Residue Management on Enzyme Activities in Soils: III. Phosphatases and Arylsulfatase. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997, 24, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rawas, A.A.; Hago, A.W.; Al-Sarmi, H. Effect of Lime, Cement and Sarooj (Artificial Pozzolan) on the Swelling Potential of an Expansive Soil from Oman. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pei, X.; Zhang, F.; Wu, W.; Liang, S. Physicochemical and Index Properties of Loess Stabilized with Lime and Fly Ash Piles. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 114, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.H.; Cui, Y.J.; Ferber, V.; Herrier, G.; Ozturk, T.; Plier, F.; Puiatti, D.; Salager, S.; Tang, A.M.; Tang, A.M. Effect of Freeze-thaw Cycles on Mechanical Strength of Lime-treated Fine-grained Soils. Transp. Geotech. 2019, 21, 100281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Shinawi, A. Instability Improvement of the Subgrade Soils by Lime addition at Borg El-Arab, Alexandria, Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2017, 130, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Mavroulidou, M.; Gunn, M.J. Mechanical Properties and Behaviour of a Partially Saturated Lime-treated, High Plasticity Clay. Eng. Geol. 2015, 193, 320–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janosik, S.M. Post-construction evaluation of Lime treated Soils. NASPA J. 2005, 42, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, N. Evaluation of Structural Properties of Lime Stabilized Soils and Aggregates; NLA: Arlington, VA, USA, 1999; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Olaniyi, D. Evaluation of the Effect of Lime and Cement on the Engineering Properties of Selected Soil in a University in Southwestern Nigeria. J. Adv. Eng. Technol. 2017, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Mukhtar, M.; Lasledj, A.; Alcover, J.-F. Behaviour and Mineralogy Changes in Lime-Treated Expansive Soil at 50 °C. Appl. Clay Sci. 2010, 50, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, F.G. Lime Stabilization of Clay Minerals and Soils F.G. Eng. Geol. 1996, 42, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egorova, A.A.; Rybak, J.; Stefaniuk, D.; Zajączkowski, P. Basic Aspects of Deep Soil Mixing Technology Control. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 022019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanty, P.; Rybak, J.; Stefaniuk, D. Some Remarks on Practical Aspects of Laboratory Testing of Deep Soil Mixing Composites Achieved in Organic Soils. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 022018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rao, S.M.; Thyagaraj, T. Lime Slurry Stabilisation of an Expansive Soil. Geotech. Eng. 2003, 156, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solomon, C. Minerals Yearbook—Cement; United States Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- United States Geological Survey (USGS). Mineral Commodity Summaries—Cement; United States Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, N.; Jaffar, A.; Anwer, M.; Khurram Khan Alwi, S.; Naeem Anjum, M.; Ali, N.; Riaz Raja, M.; Hussain, A.; Ming, X.; Author, C. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced by Cement Production and Its Impact on Environment A Review of Global Cement Processing. Int. J. Res. 2015, 2, 488–500. [Google Scholar]
- Prakasan, S.; Palaniappan, S.; Gettu, R. Study of Energy Use and CO2 Emissions in the Manufacturing of Clinker and Cement. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2020, 101, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taffese, W.Z.; Abegaz, K.A. Embodied Energy and CO2 Emissions of Widely Used Building Materials: The Ethiopian Context. Buildings 2019, 9, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cui, D.; Deng, Z.; Liu, Z. China’s Non-Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions from Industrial Processes. Appl. Energy 2019, 254, 113537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Z.; Shen, L.; Zhao, J.; Liu, L.; Zhong, S.; Sun, Y.; Yang, Y. Toward a Better Practice for Estimating the CO2 Emission Factors of Cement Production: An Experience from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 527–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, B.; Wang, J.; He, J.; Geng, Y. Evaluating CO2 Emission Performance in China’s Cement Industry: An Enterprise Perspective. Appl. Energy 2016, 166, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.; Hong, J.; Xu, C. Pollutants Generated by Cement Production in China, Their Impacts, and the Potential for Environmental Improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, J.; McNeil, M.; Price, L.; Khanna, N.Z.; Zhou, N. Estimation of CO2 Emissions from China’s Cement Production: Methodologies and Uncertainties. Energy Policy 2013, 57, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nasab, T.J.; Monavari, S.M.; Jozi, S.A.; Majedi, H. Assessment of Carbon Footprint in the Construction Phase of High-Rise Constructions in Tehran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 17, 3153–3164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.; Cen, K. Empirical Assessing Cement CO2 Emissions Based on China’s Economic and Social Development during 2001–2030. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakhtyar, B.; Kacemi, T.; Nawaz, M.A. A Review on Carbon Emissions in Malaysian Cement Industry. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2017, 7, 282–286. [Google Scholar]
- Rae, S.; Tak, S.; Yeob, G.; Gu, J.; Joo, P.; Won, G. Geoderma Evaluation of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Factor from Lime Applied in Temperate Upland Soil. Geoderma 2019, 337, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinnichenko, V.; Ryazanov, A.; Krot, O. Construction Binders and Environmental Indicators of Their Production. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 230, 03020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.Y.; Han, R.; Yu, B.; Wei, Y.M. Accounting Process-Related CO2 Emissions from Global Cement Production under Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villachica, C.A.; Villachica, J.G. Technology Development for Strong Reduction of Energy Consumption and CO2 Emission in Lime and Cement Manufacture. Geosci. Eng. 2017, 63, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suganya, O.M.; Himasaikiranreddy, D.; Srinidhi, S.V. Case Study on Environmental Impacts by Cement Industry and Minimization Using Alternate Cementitious Materials. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 910–917. [Google Scholar]
- Nayana, A.Y.; Kavitha, S. Evaluation of CO2 Emissions for Green Concrete with High Volume Slag, Recycled Aggregate, Recycled Water to Build Eco Environment. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2017, 8, 703–708. [Google Scholar]
- Klee, H.; Hunziker, R.; van der Meer, R.; Westaway, R. Getting the Numbers Right: A Database of Energy Performance and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the Cement Industry. Greenh. Gas Meas. Manag. 2011, 1, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scrivener, K.L.; John, V.M.; Garrtner, E.M. Eco-Efficient Cements: Potential, Economically Viable Solutions for a Low-CO2 Cement Based Industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajaste, R.; Hurme, M. Cement Industry Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Management Options and Abatement cost. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4041–4052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidovits, J. Geopolymer Cement a Review. Geopolym. Sci. Tech. 2013, 0, 1–11. Available online: https://www.geopolymer.org (accessed on 16 January 2013).
- Rodrigues, F.A.; Joekes, I. Cement industry: Sustainability, Challenges and Perspectives. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2011, 9, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huseien, G.F.; Mirza, J.; Ismail, M.; Ghoshal, S.K.; Hussein, A.A. Geopolymer Mortars as Sustainable Repair Material: A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 54–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, J.; Barcelo, L. Cement and CO2—A Victim of Success. Cem. Int. 2012, 10, 62–71. [Google Scholar]
- Olivier, J.G.J.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions, 2012 Report. 2012. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2012-report (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Winnefeld, F.; Andreas, L.; Alexander, G.; Barbara, L. CO2 Storage in Cement and Concrete by Mineral Carbonation. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 38, 100672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benhelal, E.; Zahedi, G.; Shamsaei, E.; Bahadori, A. Global Strategies and Potentials to Curb CO2 Emissions in Cement Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 142–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubey, A. Studies on the Air Pollution Around Cement and Lime Factories. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 3, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
- Olivier, J.G.J.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Muntean, M.; Peters, J. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions. 2016. Available online: https://www.pbl.nl/en/trends-in-global-co2-emissions (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Pardo, N.; Moya, J.A.; Mercier, A. Prospective on the Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in the EU Cement Industry. Energy 2011, 36, 3244–3254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, C.C.S.; Thorpe, D.; Islam, M. An Evaluation Carbon Footprint in Fly Ash based Geopolymer Cement and Ordinary Portland Cement Manufacture. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 2016, 1, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, L.K.; Collins, F.G. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2-e) Emissions: A Comparison between Geopolymer and OPC Cement Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Mu, S.; Yang, Z.; Tang, J.; Li, T. Effect of Temperature on Durability of Cement-Based Material to Physical Sulfate Attack. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 120936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Jiang, Z.; Myers, R.J.; Chen, Q.; Wu, M.; Li, J.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Understanding the Sulfate Attack of Portland Cement–Based Materials Exposed to Applied Electric Fields: Mineralogical Alteration and Migration Behavior of Ionic Species. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 111, 103630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvořák, K.; Všianský, D.; Gazdič, D.; Fridrichová, M.; Vaičiukynienė, D. Thaumasite Formation by Hydration of Sulphosilicate Clinker. Mater. Today Commun. 2020, 25, 101449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Zhang, T.; Luo, T.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, K.; Ma, W. Study on the Deterioration of Concrete under Dry-wet Cycle and Sulfate Attack. Materials 2020, 13, 4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Zhu, C.; Qi, C.; Zhang, B.; Song, K.I. A Microstructural Hydration Model for Cemented Paste Backfill Considering Internal Sulfate Attacks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naseeruddin, S.; Venkateswarlu, D.; Kumar, A.S. Acid Attack on Concrete. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019, 8, 2339–2343. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, G.; Shi, M.; Guo, M.; Fan, H. Degradation Mechanism of Concrete Subjected to External Sulfate Attack: Comparison of Different Curing Conditions. Materials 2020, 13, 3179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atashband, S.; Sabermahani, M.; Elahi, H. Internal and External Effects of Sodium Sulfate on the Strength of Soil Cement. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2021, 45, 2595–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Chen, Y.; Yu, Z.; Chen, L.; Zheng, Y. Research on Sulfate Attack Mechanism of Cement Concrete Based on Chemical Thermodynamics. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 5, 6916039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yi, Y.; Zhu, D.; Guo, S.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, C. A Review on the Deterioration and Approaches to Enhance the Durability of Concrete in the Marine Environment. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 113, 103695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haufe, J.; Vollpracht, A. Tensile Strength of Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 116, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, Y.; Martin, R.P.; Omikrine Metalssi, O.; Fen-Chong, T.; Dangla, P. Pore Size Analyses of Cement Paste Exposed to External Sulfate Attack and Delayed Ettringite Formation. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 123, 105766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helson, O.; Eslami, J.; Beaucour, A.L.; Noumowe, A.; Gotteland, P. Durability of Soil Mix Material Subjected to Wetting/Drying Cycles and External Sulfate Attacks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 192, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, L.C.B.; Escoqui, J.M.R.; Oliveira, T.M.; da Fonseca, L.G.; Farage, M.C.R. Sodium Sulfate Attack on Portland Cement Structures: Experimental and Analytical Approach. Rev. Esc. Minas 2018, 71, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Çopuroğlu, O.; Schlangen, E.; Han, N.; Xing, F. Expansion and Degradation of Cement Paste in Sodium Sulfate Solutions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 158, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikumi, T.; Segura, I.; Cavalaro, S.H.P. Inlfuence of Early Sulfate Exposure on the Pore Network Development of Mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 143, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, X.; Zhu, Y.; Liao, Y.; Chen, D. Study of the Evolution of Properties of Mortar under Sulfate Attack at Different Concentrations. Adv. Cem. Res. 2016, 28, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rendon, L.E.; Rendon, M.; Ramirez, N. The Effect on Concrete Resistivity of Sulfate Content in Water. MRS Online Proc. Libr. 2012, 1488, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, P.; Garboczi, E.J.; Miao, C.; Bullard, J.W. Microstructural Origins of Cement Paste Degradation by External Sulfate Attack. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mardani-Aghabaglou, A.; Kalipcilar, I.; Inan Sezer, G.; Sezer, A.; Altun, S. Freeze-Thaw Resistance and Chloride-Ion Penetration of Cement-Stabilized Clay Exposed to Sulfate Attack. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 115, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verástegui-Flores, R.D.; Di Emidio, G. Impact of Sulfate Attack on Mechanical Properties and Hydraulic Conductivity of a Cement-Admixed Clay. Appl. Clay Sci. 2014, 101, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müllauer, W.; Beddoe, R.E.; Heinz, D. Sulfate Attack Expansion Mechanisms. Cem. Concr. Res. 2013, 52, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramezanianpour, A.M.; Hooton, R.D. Thaumasite Sulfate Attack in Portland and Portland-Limestone Cement Mortars Exposed to Sulfate Solution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Chen, J.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, M.; Ye, J. A New Diffusion Model of Sulfate Ions in Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 39, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, X.; Li, X.; Wei, Q. Investigation of Sulphate Attack on C-S-H Gel. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 287, 1116–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, K.; Wang, W.; Long, G.; Xie, Y. Corrosion Products in Cement-Based Materials under Sulfate Partial Soaking Attack. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 368, 415–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdi, M.R.; Askarian, A.; Mahdi, S.S.G. Effects of Sodium and Calcium Sulphates on Volume Stability and Strength of Lime-Stabilized Kaolinite. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 941–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.; Zhu, X.; Wang, J.; Mu, M.; Wang, Y. Comparison of CO2 Emissions from OPC and Recycled Cement Production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrachero, M.V. Ultrasonic and Impact Spectroscopy Monitoring on Internal Sulphate Attack of Cement-Based Materials. Mater. Des. 2017, 125, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shan, Y.; Liu, Z.; Guan, D. CO2 Emissions from China’s Lime Industry. Appl. Energy 2016, 166, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olivier, P. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas 2021 Report; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Çelİk, E. Evaluation of Hydrated Lime Stabilization of Sulfate Bearing Expansive Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, North Cyprus, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Buttress, A.J. Physicochemical Behaviour of Artificial Lime Stabilised Sulfate Bearing Cohesive Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Imbabi, M.S.; Carrigan, C.; McKenna, S. Trends and Developments in Green Cement and Concrete Technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 194–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cerato, A.B.; Miller, G.A.; Elwood-Madden, M.; Adams, A. Calcium-Based Stabilizer Induced Heave in Oklahoma Sulfate-Bearing Soils. 2011. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/23202 (accessed on 21 December 2022).
- Rajasekaran, G.; Narasimha Rao, S. Sulphate Attack in Lime-Treated Marine Clay. Mar. Georesour. Geotechnol. 2005, 23, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivapullaiah, P.V.; Sridharan, A.; Ramesh, H.N. Effect of Sulphate on the Shear Strength of Lime-Treated Kaolinitic Soil. Gr. Improv. 2006, 10, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivapullaiah, P.V.; Sridharan, A.; Ramesh, H.N. Strength Behaviour of Lime-Treated Soils in the Presence of Sulphate. Can. Geotech. J. 2000, 37, 1358–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinuthia, J.; Wild, S.; Jones, G. Effects of Monovalent and Divalent Metal Sulphates on Consistency and Compaction of Lime-Stabilised Kaolinite. Appl. Clay Sci. 1999, 14, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdi, M.R.; Wild, S. Sulphate Expansion of Lime-Stabilized Kaolinite: I. Physical Characteristics. Clay Miner. 1993, 28, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, J.K.; Dermatas, D. Clay Soil Heave Caused by Lime-Sulfate Reactions. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. 1992, 4, 41–64. [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, D. Lime—Induced Heave in Sulfate—Bearing Clay Soils. J. Geotech. Eng. 1988, 114, 150–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, L.; Ben-Yair, M. Effect of Sulphate Solutions on Normal and Sulphate-Resisting Portland Cement. J. Appl. Chem. 2007, 14, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherwood, P.T. Effect of Sulfates on Cement- and Lime-Stabilized Soils. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 8–12 January 1962; Volume 353, pp. 98–107. [Google Scholar]
- Maier, M.; Sposito, R.; Beuntner, N.; Thienel, K.C. Particle Characteristics of Calcined Clays and Limestone and Their Impact on Early Hydration and Sulfate Demand of Blended Cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 154, 106736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, Y.; Jamil, T.; Hu, C.; Gautam, B.P.; Yu, J. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Sustainable Cementitious Materials with Ultra-High Substitution Level of Calcined Clay and Limestone Powder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 314, 125416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaraghi, A.H.Y.; Ramezanianpour, A.M.; Ramezanianpour, A.A.; Bahman-Zadeh, F.; Zolfagharnasab, A. Evaluation of Test Procedures for Durability and Permeability Assessment of Concretes Containing Calcined Clay. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 58, 105016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xuan, M.Y.; Bae, S.C.; Kwon, S.J.; Wang, X.Y. Sustainability Enhancement of Calcined Clay and Limestone Powder Hybrid Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Using Belite-Rich Portland Cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 351, 128932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luzu, B.; Trauchessec, R.; Lecomte, A. Packing Density of Limestone Calcined Clay Binder. Powder Technol. 2022, 408, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sposito, R.; Maier, M.; Beuntner, N.; Thienel, K.C. Physical and Mineralogical Properties of Calcined Common Clays as SCM and Their Impact on Flow Resistance and Demand for Superplasticizer. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 154, 106743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardinaud, G.; Rozière, E.; Martinage, O.; Loukili, A.; Barnes-Davin, L.; Paris, M.; Deneele, D. Calcined Clay—Limestone Cements: Hydration Processes with High and Low-Grade Kaolinite Clays. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 277, 122271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamhiri, B. Evaluation of Pozzolan-Lime Stabilization on Physical Properties of Fine Sandy Engineering Fills. Konya J. Eng. Sci. 2020, 8, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Admassu, K. Engineerinh Soil and the Need for Lime-natural Pozzolan Mixture. Ethiop. J. Sci. 2018, 41, 70–79. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, R.S.; Han, Y.; Wang, X.Y. Macro–Meso–Micro Experimental Studies of Calcined Clay Limestone Cement (LC3) Paste Subjected to Elevated Temperature. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2021, 116, 103871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chundawat, D.S.; Sharma, D.K.; Tomar, S. Durability Properties of Concrete Incorporating Calcined Phyllite. Preprint 2021, 2021010077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Wu, H.L.; Mishra, D.K.; Li, G.; Leung, C.K. Compressive Strength and Environmental Impact of Sustainable Blended Cement with High-Dosage Limestone and Calcined Clay (LC2). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, A.; Du, H.; Pang, S.D. Performance of Mortar Incorporating Calcined Marine Clays with Varying Kaolinite Content. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Msinjili, N.S.; Vogler, N.; Sturm, P.; Neubert, M.; Schröder, H.J.; Kühne, H.C.; Hünger, K.J.; Gluth, G.J.G. Calcined Brick Clays and Mixed Clays as Supplementary Cementitious Materials: Effects on the Performance of Blended Cement Mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 120990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, R.S.; Lee, H.S.; Han, Y.; Wang, X.Y. Experimental Studies on Hydration–Strength–Durability of Limestone-Cement-Calcined Hwangtoh Clay Ternary Composite. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nair, N.; Mohammed Haneefa, K.; Santhanam, M.; Gettu, R. A Study on Fresh Properties of Limestone Calcined Clay Blended Cementitious Systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhandapani, Y.; Santhanam, M. Investigation on the Microstructure-Related Characteristics to Elucidate Performance of Composite Cement with Limestone-Calcined Clay Combination. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 129, 105959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, F. Calcined Clay and Limestone as Partial Replacements of Portland Cement: Electrochemical Corrosion Behavior of Low Carbon Steel Rebar as Concrete Reinforcement in Corrosive Environment. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2020, 15, 12281–12290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobinath, R.; Awoyera, P.O.; Praveen, N.; Babu, V.A.; Sai, P.S.; Prathibha, K. Effects of calcined clay on the engineering properties of cementitious mortars. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 39, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scrivener, K.; Favier, A. Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, H.; Pang, S.D. High-performance Concrete Incorporating Calcined Kaolin Clay and Limestone as Cement Substitute. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 264, 120152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafari, K.; Rajabipour, F. Performance of Impure Calcined Clay as a Pozzolan in Concrete. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 2675, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murtaza, M.; Rahman, M.K.; Al-Majed, A.A. The application and comparative study of calcined clay and nanoclaymixed cement slurries at hpht conditions. In Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgün, Y. Behavior of Concrete Containing Alternative Pozzolan Calcined Marl Blended Cement. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2020, 64, 1087–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laidani, Z.E.A.; Benabed, B.; Abousnina, R.; Gueddouda, M.K.; Kadri, E.H. Experimental Investigation on Effects of Calcined Bentonite on Fresh, Strength and Durability Properties of Sustainable Self-Compacting Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 117062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ston, J.; Scrivener, K. Basic Creep of Limestone–Calcined Clay Cements: An Experimental and Numerical Approach. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2019, 103, 102270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irassar, E.F.; Bonavetti, V.L.; Castellano, C.C.; Trezza, M.A.; Rahhal, V.F.; Cordoba, G.; Lemma, R. Calcined Illite-Chlorite Shale as Supplementary Cementing Material: Thermal Treatment, Grinding, Color and Pozzolanic Activity. Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 179, 105143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krishnan, S.; Emmanuel, A.C.; Bishnoi, S. Hydration and Phase Assemblage of Ternary Cements with Calcined Clay and Limestone. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 222, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pillai, R.G.; Gettu, R.; Santhanam, M.; Rengaraju, S.; Dhandapani, Y.; Rathnarajan, S.; Basavaraj, A.S. Service Life and Life Cycle Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Systems with Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3). Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 118, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trümer, A.; Ludwig, H.-M.; Schellhorn, M.; Diedel, R. Effect of a Calcined Westerwald Bentonite as Supplementary Cementitious Material on the Long-Term Performance of Concrete. Appl. Clay Sci. 2019, 168, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arjun, K.R.; Shaji, P.P. Partial Replecement of Cement Clinker with Limestone and low Quality Calcined Clay. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 6, 1512–1515. [Google Scholar]
- Adekitan, O.A.; Popoola, M.O. Potentials of Calcined Clay as a Pozzolan. Epa. J. Silic. Based Compos. Mater. 2020, 72, 70–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apsa; Ranga Rao, V. Performance of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (Lc3). Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 7, 260–265. [Google Scholar]
- Qinfei, L.; Han, W.; Pengkun, H.; Heng, C.; Yang, W.; Xin, C. The Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Cementitious Materials Comprised of Limestone, Calcined Clay and Clinker. Ceram.—Silikaty 2019, 63, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salem, N.; Ltifi, M.; Hassis, H. Mechanical and Durability Study of Tunisian Calcined Clay in Lightweight Concrete of Expanded Clay. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 2257–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z.; Ferreiro, S.; Lothenbach, B.; Geiker, M.R.; Kunther, W.; Kaufmann, J.; Herfort, D.; Skibsted, J. Sulfate Resistance of Calcined Clay—Limestone—Portland Cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 116, 238–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwiti, M.J.; Karanja, T.J.; Muthengia, W.J. Properties of Activated Blended Cement Containing High Content of Calcined Clay. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scrivener, K.; Martirena, F.; Bishnoi, S.; Maity, S. Calcined Clay Limestone Cements (LC3). Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhandapani, Y.; Santhanam, M. Assessment of Pore Structure Evolution in the Limestone Calcined Clay Cementitious System and Its Implications for Performance. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 84, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayati, B.; Newport, D.; Wong, H.; Cheeseman, C. Low-Carbon Cements: Potential for Low-Grade Calcined Clays to Form Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Clean. Mater. 2022, 5, 100099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, Y.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Q.; Shah, S.P. The Effects of Nano-Calcined Kaolinite Clay on Cement Mortar Exposed to Acid Deposits. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 102, 486–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor-Lange, S.C.; Lamon, E.L.; Riding, K.A.; Juenger, M.C.G. Calcined Kaolinite-Bentonite Clay Blends as Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 108, 84–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tironi, A.; Castellano, C.C.; Bonavetti, V.L.; Trezza, M.A.; Scian, A.N.; Irassar, E.F. Kaolinitic Calcined Clays—Portland Cement System: Hydration and Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 64, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Calcium Binder [Ref.] (Problem) | Findings |
---|---|
Lime [62] CO2 emission | The CO2 emission was 0.12 Mg per Mg for CaCO3, which indicates that 100% C is ultimately released into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 |
Lime [109] Sulphate Attack | The ettringite formed and caused swelling with a high affinity to absorb water, causing a decrease in compressive strength and destroying the structure, especially in earlier stages of formation. |
Cement [110] CO2 emission | A considerable share of global CO2 emissions comes from OPC production. |
Cement [18] CO2 emission | - Cement production is the third most significant source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Cumulative emissions were 39.3 ± 2.4 Gt CO2 from 1928 to 2016, 66% since 1990. |
Cement [111] Sulfate attack | - Due to the high solubility of gypsum in water. The great molar volume of ettringite reinforces internal stress in the cementing matrix, and this cause an expansion. The more SO3 is added, the more time is given for the formation of ettringite, where for 2% added, a large amount of ettringite is formed. |
Lime [112] CO2 emission | - The production of lime is the second highest source of carbon emission from industrial processes. The emission of Carbone dioxide increased speedily from 88.79 million tons to 141.72 million tons from 2001 to 2016 in China’s lime industry. |
Cement [113] CO2 emission | 8% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generated in the global cement. |
Lime [114] Sulfate attack | The sulfate caused the swell potentials and plasticity to increase unusually because of the formation of the ettringite minerals. In addition, the shear strength decreased with increased sulfate concentration and curing time. |
Lime [115] Sulfate attack | The sulfate in the soil can react with the hydraulic binder and the aluminosilicates to form expansive minerals. |
Cement [116] CO2 emission | Around 6% of all artificial carbon emissions are produced by every ton of OPC. |
Lime [117] Sulfate attack | Samples containing sulfate and lime experienced swelling due to the ettringite formation in the samples. Any presence of sulfate in the natural soil could produce ettringite if calcium-based stabilizers are used. |
Lime [118] Sulfate attack | The ettringite formation in the sulfate clay system negatively affects marine clay engineering properties. |
Lime [119] Sulfate attack | In the presence of sulfate, the shear strength initially increases with a cure period, then drastically decreases after cure after more than 180 days due to ettringite formation. |
Cement [17] CO2 emission | The emission of CO2 in the cement industry is from two parts: raw and fuel burning; CO2 emissions represent approximately 5–7 % of global emissions of CO2. |
Lime [120] Sulfate attack | Sulfate levels cause abnormal changes in the volume of lime-stabilized soil and reduce the shear strength of lime-treated black cotton soil after long treatment periods. However, the effect of sulfate is marginal for short healing periods. |
Lime [121] (Sulfate attack) | the effects of sulfate depend on the type of sulfate cation. Ca2+ and Mg2+ increase the lime-added effect on the consistency and dynamic compaction properties of clay. Others tend to reverse these effects, Na+ and K+. |
Lime [122] (Sulfate attack) | Results showed that the higher gypsum levels (up to 8 WT) resulted in significant water absorption, extreme expansion, and high inflationary pressure due to ettringite formation. |
Lime [123] (Sulfate attack) | Whenever there was a sulfate, ettringite formation was present in all lime-treated samples. |
Lime [124] (Sulfate attack) | After several years in a specific case study, lime-treated sulfate-bearing clay swelled and disintegrated when used for road building. Abundant thaumasite, a complex mineral of calcium-silicate-hydrates, is found in heavy areas. |
Cement [125] (Sulfate attack) | The results show no direct correlation between the degree of expansion of cement on sulfate attack and the amount of crystalline calcium sulphoaluminate present. Other factors, such as its stability under prevalent conditions and the influence of other ions, particularly magnesium and chloride ions, may predominate. In addition, protective surface films also play a significant part. |
Lime and cement [126] (Sulfate attack) | In samples of 10% lime-treated heavy clay and at constant moisture content for 1 week, swelling and cracking were observed when immersed in magnesium sulfate or sodium sulfate solutions at levels less than 1.5% as SO3. |
Optim. Mixture [Ref.] | Major Properties Tested | Cement only | Cement with CC | Findings | Future Perspectives |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OPC + 30% CC [127] | Hydration degree (CH[g/gC3S reacted]) | 0.45 | 0.3 | The aluminate and silicate clinker reactions are affected and accelerated by the SCMs, but in varying ways and to varying degrees, such as enhanced initial ettringite formation and initial dissolution of C3A. | The partial replacement of cement with CC has the greatest promise as a worldwide short-term solution to substantially reduce cement producers’ greenhouse gas emissions. |
Ettringite (Wt. %) | 9.2 | 6.8 | |||
Cement + 33% CC +16.67% LS [128] | Compressive strength MPa at 28 d. | 68 | 55 | Although the compressive strength is not visibly enhanced by adding calcined clay and limestone powder as a 50–70% substitution for cement, these additives considerably increase the toughness, densify the microstructure, and refine the pore structure of cementitious materials. | Reduced clinker use may benefit the cement industry both environmentally and economically. In underdeveloped nations, cheaper cement mixes will help infrastructure development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. |
Flexural strength MPa at 28 d. | 9.4 | 9.7 | |||
Cement + 30% CC [129] Cement+ 10% LS + 20% CC [129] | Slump (mm) | 140 | 100–110 |
| - |
Measured unit weight of concrete (kg/m) | 2313 | 2291 | |||
Compressive strength MPa at 360 d. | 64 | 60 | |||
Water absorption (wt.%) at 28 d. | 3.3 | 3.1 | |||
Water penetration depth mm at 28 d. | 8.3 | 4.5 | |||
Surface electrical resistivity (k Ω-cm) | 10 | 35 | |||
Non-steady-state migration diffusion coefficient (Dnssm) | 18 | 10.6–6 | |||
Slump (mm) | 140 | 105–120 | |||
Measured unit weight of concrete (kg/m) | 2313 | 2318 | |||
Compressive strength MPa at 360 days | 64 | 55 | |||
Water absorption (wt.%) at 28 days | 3.3 | 3.05 | |||
Water penetration depth mm at 28 days | 8.3 | 5 | |||
Surface electrical resistivity (k Ω-cm) | 10 | 30 | |||
Non-steady-state migration diffusion coefficient (Dnssm) | 18 | 14–8 | |||
OPC + 22% LS + 45% CC (2:1) ratio [130] | Compressive Strength mPa at 28 days | 95 | 100 |
| It reduces CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions and promotes sustainable development. |
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/s) | 4625 | 4683 | |||
Cement + 30% LS+ 30% CC [131] | The packing density of mortar ΦM | 0.815 | 0.816 | It has been possible to prepare ternary CEM I/ CC/L binders for mortars featuring an adjusted spread and a compress- save strength close to 32.5 MPa at 28 days. | The partial replacement of cement with a combination of CC and LS fillers is a promising method for reducing the environmental effect of concrete, enhancing its long-term mechanical performance and durability. |
Compressive strength of mortars at 28 days mPa | 53 | 32.5 | |||
Cement + LS + 30% CC [132] | Particle density [g/cm3] | 3.07 | 2.94 | The using of CC causes a significant increase in yield stress, viscosity, and four times flow resistance compared to PLC. | |
Total surface area [m2/cm3] | 5.5 | 10.1 | |||
Water demand [wt%] | 26.6 | 29.1 | |||
Viscosity factor [Nmm*min] | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.16 | |||
Yield stress factor [Nmm] | 12.2 ± 0.7 | 66.9 | |||
Flow resistance [Nmm/min] | 1987 ± 69 | 7841 | |||
OPC + 30%CC + 15% LS filler [133] | Bound water (g/100 g anh, binder) | 25 | 23 |
| It has been verified that the combination of Portland cement, calcined clay, and lime- stone filler is a promising way to maximize the potential usage of composite clays in cement-based composites. |
Portlandite content (g/100 g anh, binder) | 14 | 9 | |||
Degree of hydration | 0.55 | 0.88 | |||
Soil + 6 % Cement or lime Soil + 6% CC [134] | Liquid limit (%) | 59–57 | 54 |
| Adding zeolite and lime to fine sand engineering is a unique method for changing the grain size distribution of poorly graded soils by adding fine filler content. At the same time, zeolite, as a natural pozzolan in combination with calcium hydroxide, may also induce artificial cementation. |
Plastic limit (%) | 43–38 | 19 | |||
Plasticity index | 16–19 | 35 | |||
Swell percent | 4.57–0 | 6.1 | |||
Swell pressure (kPa) | 116–0 | 161 | |||
Soil + 3% lime Soil + 3% natural pozzolana [135] | Shrinkage (%) | 13 | 9 | The 4% proportion reacted, but 3% of natural pozzolan alone showed no sign. | - |
PI (%) | 36 | 27 | |||
OMC (%) | 34 | 34 | |||
MDD (kN/m3) | 21.3 | 21.3 | |||
Stress (MPa) | 1.05 | 1.04 | |||
OPC + 15% LS. powder or + 30% CC [136] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 49 | 65 | At 300 °C the strengths of all samples increase, while those of the LC3 ternary blended pastes increase significantly more because of further hydration of binders and the formation of katoite | - |
OPC + 8% calcined Phyllite rock [137] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 33.8 | 42.7 |
| - |
Flexural strength (MPa) | 4.2 | 5.1 | |||
Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration (coulombs) | 2411 | 453 | |||
Slump (mm) | 135 | ||||
OPC + (50–60) % LS + CC (LC2) cement [138] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 62 | 59 | Cement with 50%, 60%, and 70% Limestone-calcined clay gives a compressive strength of 53.6, 43.9, and 33.4 MPa after 28 d., respectively; thus, they fulfill the requirements of 28-day strength for 52.5, 42.5, and 32.5 N cement, respectively. | Cement with LS-CC (50, 60%) shows lower embodied energy and carbon emission indices. These results can help the construction industry reduce its carbon footprint. |
Embodied energy (MJ/kg cement) | 5.5 | 4.2 | |||
Carbone emission (kg CO2/kg cement) | 0.92 | 0.56 | |||
OPC replaced by 30% of CC + LS in a 2:1 wt ratio [139] | Portlandite (%) after 28 days | 16.53 | 11.6 | Strength when using CC with OPC is closer to control OPC | CC can be used as a viable alternative to replacing cement and produce a low-carbon and sustainable concrete |
Bound water (%) | 14 | 11 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 54 | 46 | |||
Rapid chloride penetration (coulombs) | 4700 | 6500 | |||
PC + 15% CC [140] | Portlandite contents (CH), % | 11.4 | 8.6 |
| CO2 emissions from cement and concrete production can be reduced by replacing some Portland cement with these SCMs. |
Slump flow (mm) | 184.5 | 161.5 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 68 | 55 | |||
Average carbonation depth, dk (mm) (after 270 day exposure) | 3.5 | 7 | |||
OPC + 15% LS or 30% CC [141] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 53 | 45 |
| Hwangtoh calcined clay is a type of kaolin clay that is used in construction as an eco-friendly material. In contrast to other SCMs, it can be used as an environment-purification material. |
Bound water per gr binder | 26.5 | 23 | |||
Electrical resistivity (kΩ.cm) | 75 | 180 | |||
OPC + 50% clinker + 30% CC [142] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 62 | 62 | The results explained the impact of CC on increased superplasticizer demand and show the difficulties in retaining the workability for extended durations. | - |
Viscosity (Pa s) | 22 | 55 | |||
OPC + 15%LS +31% CC replacing the OPC [143] | Slump (mm) | 90 | 120 |
| - |
Surface resistivity (kohm.cm) | 15 | 270 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 55 | 45 | |||
Conductivity (S/m) | 0.04 | 0.001 | |||
Pore solution conductivity (S/m) | 5.17 | 1.43 | |||
Tortuosity | 9.65 | 27.93 | |||
Porosity % | 7.6 | 8.3 | |||
OPC + 10% LS + 10% CC [144] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 89 | 94 |
| - |
Water absorption (%) | 8.8 | 4.8 | |||
Corrosion rate (MMPY)×10−3 | 2.8 | 0.82 | |||
OPC + 5% CC [145] | Density (kg/m3) | 2.37 | 2.43 | No significant effect on the workability of mortar and higher strength was achieved at OPC replacement with 5% CC content. | Calcined clay was suitable for improving the properties of lightweight mortars. |
Compressive strength (N/mm2) | 32 | 23 | |||
Cement-LS with 30% CC cured in sulfate [146] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 9 | 45 |
| - |
expansion (%) | 0.55 | 0.005 | |||
OPC + 30% CC [147] | Chemical shrinkage, mL/g cement | 0.08 | 0.12 |
| Comparable mechanical properties and higher endurance indicate that it is possible to produce high-performance concrete with a significant proportion of clay and limestone. |
Cumulated heat, J/g cement | 330 | 400 | |||
CH content, % | 20 | 12 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 89 | 92 | |||
Elastic modulus, GPa | 41 | 43 | |||
Drying shrinkage,10−6 | 370 | 240 | |||
OPC + 20%CC [148] | Alkali-Silica reaction (ASR) with NaOH | 0.33% | 0.12% |
| Limestone-calcined clay–cement and slag -calcined clay–cement mortar mixes exhibited great strength development after substituting about 50 percent of the Portland cement. SCMs are essential components of modern concrete and are used to increase workability and durability (e.g., embodied energy and CO2 reduction). |
Compressive strength (MPa) | 27 | 24 | |||
Slump (cm) | 11.4 | 12.4 | |||
Fresh density (kg/m3) | 2244 | 2214 | |||
Fresh air content (vol %) | 6.5 | 6.8 | |||
Hardened air Content (vol %) | 6.3 | 7.1 | |||
Air spacing factor (mm) | 0.151 | 0.144 | |||
Drying shrinkage strain % | −0.09% | −0.092% | |||
Cement slurry + (2) % CC [149] | Shear stress (Ib/100 ft2) | 80 | 118 |
| This work will pave the way for future research on using CC in oil and gas cementing and its durability over time. |
Plastic viscosity (cP) | 64.4 | 94.7 | |||
Yield point (Ib/100 ft2) | 24.9 | 35.1 | |||
Un API Fluid Loss (mL) | 2091 | 1980 | |||
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS)(psi) | 4776.5 | 5895.2 | |||
OPC + 50 wt.% [150] | Specific surface (cm2/g) (Blaine) | 3210 | 3990 |
| - |
Density (g/cm3) | 3.12 | 2.76 | |||
Volume expansion (mm) | 2 | 5.5 | |||
water demand (%) | 0.32 | 0.4 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 52 | 57 | |||
ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/s) | 4440 | 4620 | |||
energy demand (kWh/t) | 1000 | 770 | |||
mass loss (%) | 3.03 | 2.08 | |||
dry shrinkage (×10−6) | 610 | 500 | |||
OPC + 15 % calcined bentonite (CB) [151] | T500 flow time (sec) | 1.9 | 3.4 |
| CB is a good solution that will reduce CO2 emissions and produce eco-friendly at a low cost and durable SCC. |
Slump flow diameter (mm) | 710 | 750 | |||
Segregation index (%) | 11 | 8 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 62 | 74 | |||
Apparent gas permeability Kapp (*10−6 m2) | 0.38 | 0.25 | |||
OPC + 15% LS-CC (LC3) [152] | Compressive creep compliance [µm/m/MPa] | 118 | 100 |
| - |
C-S-H gel (GPa) | 23 | 26.7 | |||
Portland cement + Calcined Shale CS [153] | Compressive strength (CS) (MPa) | 55 | 52.4 | Calcined illite-chlorite I/Ch shale was good strength at 90 days. | The use of CS reduces CO2 emissions in cement and concrete industries. |
Strength activity index (SAI) | 1 | 1 | |||
Flow, % | 142 | 134 | |||
OPC + 30%CC + 15% LS. [154] | Degree of hydration of belite | 0.82 | 0.38 |
| - |
Degree of hydration ofalite | 0.96 | 0.84 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 50 | 45 | |||
OPC + 31% CC, 15% LS [155] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 60 | 56.7 | The carbon footprint of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) concrete was much lower than that of OPC concrete of comparable strength. | The using of CC has shown to be a good solution to reducing CO2 |
Diffusion coefficient (×10−12 m2/s) | 15.6 | 1.7 | |||
Electrical conductivity mS/m | 6.23 | 0.14 | |||
Ageing coefficient, m | 0.17 | 0.54 | |||
Total CO2 emissions/m of concrete (kgCO2 eq./m) | 380 | 270 | |||
OPC + 30% CC [156] | Compressive strength [N/mm2] | 62 | 62 | At this proportion, the concrete properties were not changed to a significant extent. The cement with CC performed better than the reference in inhibiting durability issues, alkali-silica reaction (ASR), chloride migration, and sulfate resistance. However, negative effects were found on the carbonation velocity and the early strengths. For the majority of concrete applications. | - |
Carbonation depth [mm] | 4.5 | 10 | |||
Expansion [mm/m] | 2.2 | 0.2 | |||
Chloride migration coefficients DCl- [10−12 m2/s] | 8.2 | 2.7 | |||
OPC + 15% LS + 30% CC LC3 [157] | Specific gravity | 3.15 | 3.12 |
| CC is now a common SCMs used to reduce cement use (to replace clinker up to 40–50%). |
Standard consistency | 31% | 37% | |||
Initial setting time | 44 | 98 | |||
Final setting time | 348 | 410 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 41 | 40 | |||
Cement +20% CC [158] 25%, CC | Compressive strength (N/mm2) | 21.5 | 28 | The material has shown the potential to mitigate carbon emissions by replacing cement by as much as 20 to 50%. | CC is a suitable additive for reducing carbon emissions without compromising strength improvement. |
Compressive strength UCS (N/mm2) | 2.94 | 4.64 | |||
OPC + 20% CC +15%LS+ 5% gypsum [159] | Compressive strength (MPa) | 62 | 57 |
| The combination of 50% clinker, 15% LS, 30% CC, and 5% gypsum is a modern cement. Here, clinker is decreased by 50%, resulting in a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. |
OPC + 40% of 2:1 (CC to LS) [160] | Flexural strength (MPa) | 8 | 9.7 | The flexural strength increased significantly due to the greater formation of crystalline aluminates in the LC3. | - |
Compressive strength (MPa) | 45 | 40 | |||
OPC + 20% CC [161] | SO3 | 0.52 | 0.46 |
| - |
CaCO3 | 47 | 40 | |||
Oven dry density (g/cm3) | 2.37 | 2.34 | |||
Water porosity (%) | 13.3 | 11.38 | |||
Compressive strength (MPa) | 37.23 | 32.39 | |||
Pozzolanic activity index | 1 | 0.78 | |||
Absorption (g/mm2) | 2.1 | 1.7 | |||
Chloride ion concentration (mol/1) | 0.006 | 0.004 | |||
Mass loss (%) | −0.7 | −2.7 | |||
OPC + 21% CC–LS –exposed to a 0.11 M Na2SO4 [162] | Compressive Strength (MPa) | 69 | 72 | The findings indicate that all mortars with CC/(CC + L) 0.5 have high sulfate resistance. | It can suggest from the results that the Portland cement–CC-Limestone is included as a new form of sulfate-resistant Portland composite cement and Portland pozzolana cement by industry standards. |
OPC + 45% CC [163] | Final Setting time (mint.) | 180 | 240 | The chemically activated cement shows lower porosity, higher pozzolanic activity, higher resistance to acid attack, and shorter setting times compared to non-activated cement. | - |
Compressive Strength MPa at 90 days | 48 | 44 | |||
Porosity % | 22 | 15 | |||
Cement + 15%LS + 30% CC [164] | Porosity % | 26% | 24% | Higher substitution levels are possible with a combination of CC and LS to around 50% with similar mechanical properties and durability. | CC results in a smaller carbon footprint and lower environmental impact. |
CO2 emissions for concretes of 30 MPa grade kg CO2eq./kg | 0.145 | 0.105 | |||
CO2 emissions for concrete of 50 MPa grade kg CO2eq./kg | 0.175 | 0.11 | |||
OPC + 15%LS +30% CC [165] | Specific gravity | 3.16 | 3.01 | This cement paste research has proven that the LC3 cementitious system can produce more durable concrete than either OPC or the widely-used fly ash-based PPC. | The key to improving the environmental friendliness of cement is using mixes such as these, which have a low clinker content but significant performance implications. |
Consistency (%) | 30 | 33 | |||
Initial setting time (min) | 124 | 101 | |||
Final setting time (min) | 245 | 165 | |||
Blaine’s fineness (m2/kg) | 340 | 520 | |||
Compressive strength of cement at 28 days (MPa) | 61 | 42.1 | |||
Intrinsic permeability of hydrated cement paste at 28 days (10−20 m2) | 2 | 0.04 | |||
Cement + 15% CC [166] | Compressive strength MPa | 57.3 | 77 | It has been found that adding calcined marl to Portland cement increases its compressive strength (from 5% to 37%), density, and water resistance (from 0.92 to 0.93–0.98). In addition, once calcined marl was included, the water adsorption values dropped from 1.0 to 0.9–0.7. | The Portland cement pastes enriched with the addition of 10–15% marl calcined showed the best properties. |
Normal consistency | 27.3 | 30.4 | |||
Density, kg/m3 /% | 2270 | 2300/1.3 | |||
Water adsorption, % | 1 | 0.90 | |||
Water resistance | 0.920 | 0.980 | |||
Specific surface area, m2/kg | 800 | ||||
OPC + 3% CC [167] | CH content/% | 23.9 | 19 |
| - |
Intensity/counts at 28 days | 1290 | 900 | |||
C-S-H/% | 65.8 | 76.7 | |||
Unreacted/% | 10.005 | 6.181 | |||
Porosity/% | 0.17 | 0.003 | |||
Compressive strength loss, Dfc% at 60 days | 52 | 40 | |||
Cement + 15 %CC [168] | Compressive Strengths at 1, | 18 | 20 | The CC consumed higher portlandite, and the compressive strength increased when the amorphous content of the CC increased. The CC reached an approximate 10% increase in compressive strength relative to the control at 90 days. | Using CC offers significant advantages as a cement replacement material, a low-cost alternative binder, with the ability to enhance strength. |
3, | 28 | 30 | |||
7, | 34 | 38 | |||
28 | 38 | 36 | |||
and 90 days of curing | 42 | 46 | |||
Portland Cement + 30%CC [169] | Compressive strength MPa |
| Using the suitable blended cement mix with CC makes it possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve mechanical and durability performance. | ||
at 2 days | 25 | 23 | |||
At 7 days | 30 | 35 | |||
At 28 days | 37 | 48 | |||
[Cao] mmmol/l | |||||
at 2 days | 8 | 2 | |||
At 7 days | 6 | 1 | |||
At 28 days | 5 | 0.5 | |||
[OH] mmol/l | |||||
at 2 days | 85 | 48 | |||
At 7 days | 96 | 45 | |||
At 28 days | 106 | 50 | |||
Sorptivity Coefficient | 0.094 | 0.022 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mohammed, A.A.; Nahazanan, H.; Nasir, N.A.M.; Huseien, G.F.; Saad, A.H. Calcium-Based Binders in Concrete or Soil Stabilization: Challenges, Problems, and Calcined Clay as Partial Replacement to Produce Low-Carbon Cement. Materials 2023, 16, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16052020
Mohammed AA, Nahazanan H, Nasir NAM, Huseien GF, Saad AH. Calcium-Based Binders in Concrete or Soil Stabilization: Challenges, Problems, and Calcined Clay as Partial Replacement to Produce Low-Carbon Cement. Materials. 2023; 16(5):2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16052020
Chicago/Turabian StyleMohammed, Angham Ali, Haslinda Nahazanan, Noor Azline Mohd Nasir, Ghasan Fahim Huseien, and Ahmed Hassan Saad. 2023. "Calcium-Based Binders in Concrete or Soil Stabilization: Challenges, Problems, and Calcined Clay as Partial Replacement to Produce Low-Carbon Cement" Materials 16, no. 5: 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16052020