Next Article in Journal
Spatial Spillover Effect and Influencing Factors of Information Flow in Urban Agglomerations—Case Study of China Based on Baidu Search Index
Next Article in Special Issue
African Case Studies: Developing Pavement Temperature Maps for Performance-Graded Asphalt Bitumen Selection
Previous Article in Journal
Alleviation of Salt Stress in Wheat Seedlings via Multifunctional Bacillus aryabhattai PM34: An In-Vitro Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review on Bitumen Aging and Rejuvenation Chemistry: Processes, Materials and Analyses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/su13148031
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review of the Utilization of Coal Bottom Ash (CBA) in the Construction Industry

by
Syakirah Afiza Mohammed
1,2,
Suhana Koting
1,*,
Herda Yati Binti Katman
3,*,
Ali Mohammed Babalghaith
1,
Muhamad Fazly Abdul Patah
4,
Mohd Rasdan Ibrahim
1 and
Mohamed Rehan Karim
5
1
Center for Transportation Research, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Perlis 02600, Malaysia
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Putrajaya Campus, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, Kajang 43000, Malaysia
4
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
5
Transportation Science Society of Malaysia, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(14), 8031; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148031
Submission received: 5 June 2021 / Revised: 9 July 2021 / Accepted: 12 July 2021 / Published: 19 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Pavement Engineering and Road Materials)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One effective method to minimize the increasing cost in the construction industry is by using coal bottom ash waste as a substitute material. The high volume of coal bottom ash waste generated each year and the improper disposal methods have raised a grave pollution concern because of the harmful impact of the waste on the environment and human health. Recycling coal bottom ash is an effective way to reduce the problems associated with its disposal. This paper reviews the current physical and chemical and utilization of coal bottom ash as a substitute material in the construction industry. The main objective of this review is to highlight the potential of recycling bottom ash in the field of civil construction. This review encourages and promotes effective recycling of coal bottom ash and identifies the vast range of coal bottom ash applications in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

The increasing price of oil and natural gas has made coal-fired power generation more economical, especially in countries with vast coal resources such as India, the United States of America (US), and China [1]. China consumes 50.2% of the coal in 2012, followed by US and India (11.7%), Japan (8.0%), Russia (3.3%), South Africa (2.5%), South Korea (2.4%), Germany (2.2%), Poland (2.1%), and Indonesia (1.4%) [2]. India, China, and Australia are projected to contribute 64% of the world coal production in 2040, a growth of about 4% compared to the 2012 coal production [3].
The increasing trend in coal consumption will continue mainly due to the high demand for electricity. Coal is rapidly gaining favor as an energy source for generating electricity, after gas [4]. The 0.9% increase in world coal consumption in 2019 was driven by Asia (1.8%). The utilization of coal as a global source of electricity generation is expected to increase to 47% by 2030 [2,5].
The high demand for coal production has resulted in the generation of a higher amount of industrial waste. Fly ash makes up 70–80% of the total coal ash wastes, and the remaining 10–20% is bottom ash [2,3,6]. Of the millions of tons of coal ash waste generated annually, 100 million metric tons (Mt) is bottom ash, and the remainder is fly ash [7]. The World of Coal Ash (WOCA) estimated that coal thermal power plants generate 780 million metric tons of coal bottom ash (CBA), of which 66% is by Asian countries, followed by Europe and the United States [8]. China produces the highest amount of coal ash of 395 million metric tons (Mt), followed by the US (118 Mt), India (105 Mt), Europe (52.6 Mt), and Africa (31.1 Mt). The Middle East and other countries contributed a small amount to the global coal ash generation [9]. Of the 105 million metric tons of coal produced in India [9], about 35 million metric tons is coal bottom ash produced by the power plants that generate electricity [10].
The wastes produced in electricity generation are boiler slag, fly ash, clinker, and bottom ash [11,12]. The physical properties and the chemical composition of bottom ash and fly ash differ because fly ash is lighter than the bottom ash collected in a hopper after falling through the bottom furnace. The bottom ash could be wet or dry bottom ash, depending on the type of boiler.
Bottom ash has a porous texture and angular particles; the size of the bottom ash generally ranges between sand and gravel particles and a small amount of slit–clay particles [11,12]. A large proportion of the bottom ash is fine particles that comprise 50–90% of bottom ash. The specific gravity of bottom ash is dependent on its chemical properties and ranges between 1.39 and 2.41 [13,14,15]. Coal bottom ash falls into the A-1-a class and well-graded sand groups of the AASHTO and USCS classification systems [16].
The disposal of bottom ash landfills has raised a grave environmental concern [16,17]. The high composition of heavy metal in bottom ash, relative to fly ash, increases the risk of groundwater pollution [18,19]. One way to deal with the increasing amount of CBA generated and the scarcity of land is by recycling and reusing CBA [20].
The large amount of coal bottom ash produced by the thermal power plants is one of the primary industrial wastes. Therefore, using CBA in the construction industry will save time and reduce landfill use, cost, and energy. The two key benefits of recycling CBA in civil construction are a considerable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste generation by coal-fired thermal power plants [15]. Moreover, this approach will protect the environment from the harmful impact of this waste material. This paper presents a review of the utilization of coal bottom ash in civil construction.

2. Properties of Coal Bottom Ash

The specific properties of coal bottom ash are dependent on factors such as the coal source and type of coal. There are four types of coal: anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite [21]. The type of coal is dependent on the types and amounts of carbon, the amount of heat energy the coal can produce, the level of carbon moisture, and other chemical elements [22]. Anthracite has the highest carbon content, followed by bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite. Generally, the types of coal used in energy generation are bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite. The geological formation of the coal determines its chemical composition; the CBA from the different types of coal have varying silica oxide (SiO2), alumina oxide (Al2O3), and ferric oxide (Fe2O3) contents and characteristics that influence the research finding [22,23].
Bottom ash is washed before use to remove unnecessary materials such as pyrite, which could degrade the bottom ash in the presence of water. The bottom ash should also be free of dust to ensure the correct grain size distribution. Finally, the bottom ash is dried to remove humidity and excessive moisture, which affect the mixture’s reliability [24].

2.1. Physical Properties

Table 1 shows the physical properties of CBA from various sources. The specific gravity of CBA ranges between 1.39 and 2.41 and its water absorption is between 6.8 and 32%. CBA has a Los Angeles abrasion of 55% and a moisture content of 0.43%. Its fineness modulus ranges between 1.5 and 3.44, and its specific surface area ranges from 3835.7 to 10,500 (cm2/g).
Table
Table 1. Physical properties of CBA.
Table 1. Physical properties of CBA.
ReferencesSpecific Gravity
(No Unit)		Water Absorption (%)Los Angeles
Abrasion, (%) 		Moisture Content
(%)		Fineness Modulus
(No Unit)		Surface Area (cm2/g)
[25]2.21---2.79-
[26]2.4132---3835.75
[27]1.8----10,500
[28]2.086.8--1.5-
[14]2.2220.15--2.71-
[3]1.8811.61--3.44-
[17,29]1.3931.58--1.37
[30]2.00-----
[31]2.2111.17----
[32]1.875.4--2.36-
[33]1.3912.10----
[24]--55---
[34]2.106.18-0.432.10-
[25]2.21-----

2.2. Chemical Properties

Table 2 presents the chemical composition of CBA from various power plants, where the percentages of the chemical composition are expressed by mass. Silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and calcium oxide (CaO) are the primary mineral compounds in coal rock [35]. The chemical composition of CBA comprises the major and minor components. The total percentages of the chemical composition for the CBA from different sources varies and is less 100%. The minor components cannot be traced due to their small amounts. Table 2 shows that coal bottom ash contains high amount of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 that improve pozzolanic effects, mixture interlock, and properties such as the strength [28].
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of CBA.
Table 2. Chemical composition of CBA.
ReferencesChemical Composition (%)
SiO2Al2O3Fe2O3CaOMgONa2OK2OTiO2P2O5SO3
[36]62.3325.524.161.000.940.083.250.840.12-
[6]65.0219.186.861.762.000.85-0.930.04-
[26]52.517.658.304.720.58--2.17-0.84
[27]50.4927.5610.934.191.240.570.822.230.240.10
[37]47.123.15.77.81.50.75.31.2-1.5
[38]59.8227.763.771.860.701.610.33--1.39
[39]52.227.56.05.91.7-0.61.530.740.13
[40]58.720.16.29.51.60.11.0-1.00.4
[14]62.3227.213.570.500.950.702.582.15--
[3]45.3018.1019.848.700.97-2.483.270.3510.352
[17]56.4429.248.440.750.40.091.24---
[30]64.4515.897.773.922.450.891.6-<0.01<0.01
[41]68.918.676.51.610.530.241.521.33--
[31]52.118.3411.996.614.852.431.570.87--
[29]47.5320.695.994.170.820.330.76--1.00
[42]57.7621.588.561.581.190.141.08--0.02
[43]54.828.58.494.20.350.080.452.710.28-

2.3. Comparison between CBA and Different Waste Used as Aggregate Replacement

Researchers have investigated steel slag, coconut waste, recycled asphalt, recycled concrete, mining waste, glass, crumb rubber, palm oil shell, and palm oil clinker as natural aggregate replacement. Table 3 summarizes the physical properties of the wastes used as aggregate replacement in asphalt pavements and concrete production.
Except for steel slag, the specific gravities of the wastes listed in Table 3 are similar to that of CBA. Steel slag has a higher specific gravity of between 3.01 and 3.67 [44,45,46,47], although coconut waste and palm oil shells have high absorption values of between 13.8 and 25% because of their porous structure [48,49,50,51,52]. The Los Angeles abrasion for the wastes ranges between 11.29 and 25.3% [44,45,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60], which is lower than the 55% for CBA [24]. The lower Los Angeles abrasion values indicate that the materials are tougher and more resistant to abrasion than CBA. The moisture content of the waste is between 0.11 and 9.1% [46,61,62,63]. The fineness modulus values of 6.53–6.78% for the coconut waste, recycled concrete, and palm oil shell are similar to CBA and are comparable to the natural aggregates, making them suitable for aggregate replacement.
Table
Table 3. The physical properties of the wastes used as aggregates in asphalt pavement and concrete production.
Table 3. The physical properties of the wastes used as aggregates in asphalt pavement and concrete production.
WastePhysical Property ParametersUsed As
Specific Gravity (No Unit)Water Absorption (%)Los Angeles Abrasion (%)Moisture Content (%)Fineness Modulus (%)FineCoarseReference
Steel slag3.411.4911.29 √[44]
3.01-14.2 √[45]
3.42 *3.31 *-1.56 *-√√[46]
3.58 **4.23 **2.8 **
3.671.4--- √[47]
Coconut waste1.1521- 6.78 √[48,49]
1.1613.8--- √[50]
Recycled asphalt 2.680.2022.2 √√[53]
2.550.2320.25 √√[54]
Recycled concrete2.41 *4.80 *18.7 √√[55]
2.42 **7.40 **
2.18 *2.69 *24 √√[56,57,58]
2.42 **4.28 **
2.358.01-9.1-√√[61]
2.42–2.44 *6.5–6.8 *---√√[64]
2.415 **9 **
2.533.04--- √[65]
2.445.65--6.92 √[28]
Mining waste2.340.8620.5 √[59]
2.870.2325.3 √√[60]
Glass2.320–25--- √[66]
2.450.36---√ [65]
Crumb rubber1.15-- √ [67]
1.25-- √ [68]
Palm oil shell1.3712.47--6.53 √[51]
1.325--- √[52]
Palm oil clinker2.08-- √ [69,70]
1.515.5-0.31- √[71]
1.785.7-0.38- √[62]
1.18 *4.35 *-0.28 * √√[63]
2.15 **5.75 **0.11 **
* Coarse aggregate, ** fine aggregate.

2.4. Sustainability

Researchers are looking for alternatives to the conventional CBA disposal method that has given rise to environmental problems. Recycling coal bottom ash is the best solution for the high cost of disposing of the coal bottom ash waste [72], the decreasing disposal area, and the harmful environmental impact [73]. CBA is physically similar to natural aggregates and resembles Portland cement (PC) when pulverized into finer particles [74]. Previous studies have shown that its pozzolanic reactivity makes CBA a promising alternative for cement replacement in concrete and can reduce up to 90% of the concrete carbon footprints [75]. Replacing PC with CBA in concrete production can reduce CO2 emissions [74,76]. Previous studies have also proven the beneficial impacts of using CBA as PC replacement on the environment and the problems associated with conventional concrete [18,77,78]. CBA is a green material that could reduce harmful environmental impact and promote sustainability in concrete production [74].
Asphalt construction requires a large amount of natural aggregates, namely 100% aggregates for the base and subbase courses, 95% for bituminous, and 87% for concrete pavements. The natural aggregates used to construct one kilometer of a surface course using a bituminous mixture could exceed 15,000 tons [7]. In recent years, natural aggregate replacement with CBA has reduced construction costs and minimized the need to harvest aggregates from natural resources.

3. Applications of Coal Bottom Ash

3.1. Pavement Construction

Prior studies on the utilization of coal ash waste in the construction industry focused more on fly ash than bottom ash. However, recent studies reported that bottom ash has some desired engineering properties that make it a feasible construction material. The minimum strength, stability, durability, and other specifications of the products incorporated with CBA must be complied with [79]. CBA has been used as an aggregate replacement, cement replacement, additive in bitumen, and filler in asphalt pavement. Table 4 summarizes the effect of CBA in pavement construction.
Yoo et al. [80] investigated the performance of HMA mixture incorporated with bottom ash as a partial replacement for fine aggregates at the ratio of 10, 20, and 30%. The incorporation of bottom ash using the Marshall Mix Design increased the optimum asphalt content by 10%. Increasing the bottom ash content from 10 to 30% did not affect the optimum asphalt content [80]. The presence of bottom ash in asphalt mixtures did not affect the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixtures relative to the control mixture. The asphalt mixtures containing bottom ash exhibited higher resistance towards fatigue cracking when subjected to repeated indirect tensile stiffness modulus (IDT) testing under dynamic loading. The research performed the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) test on the raw bottom ash to determine its toxicity and found that the toxicity concentration in bottom ash is within the permissible range.
Colonna et al. [24] investigated the impact of utilizing bottom ash as a partial replacement for fine aggregates in asphalt mixtures. The percentage bottom ash as a partial replacement is 15, 20, and 25%, and the optimum binder content (OBC) is 4.5% of the 60/70 asphalt binder. However, the OBC percentage for 20% of the CBA replacement is 5% higher. The researchers observed enhanced stability and reduced wearing resistance with higher CBA contents. However, the mixtures have good wearing resistance with a Cantabro index of less than 30%. The researchers concluded that the optimum CBA content is 15%. The leaching test showed that the hazardous substances leached by all samples are below the limit of detection and the trace substances are below the allowable limit.
Ksaibati [81] examined the feasibility of using CBA as a complete aggregate replacement. The coarse CBA and fine CBA were used in HMA and tested in field and laboratory assessments. The three tested samples were prepared using bottom ash from three different resources. Results showed that the optimum asphalt content was higher in the mixture containing bottom ash with no difference in the performance of the bottom ash mixture and control mixture after being in service. The laboratory analysis showed that all tested HMA mixtures have different low- and high-temperature cracking characteristics, indicating that the varying properties of the bottom ash from the various power plants may affect the strength of the asphalt mixture.
Hesami et al. [82] assessed the potential of using bottom ash in rigid pavements. The coal waste ash, coal waste powder, and limestone powder were used as cement replacement in the roller-compacted concrete pavement (RCCP) in varying percentages of 5 to 20%. The researchers determined the elasticity modulus, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and compressive strength of the pavements between day 7 to day 90. The water/cement ratio increased when using the coal waste ash and coal waste powder. The mixtures containing 5% CWS and coal waste ash had similar strength to the control mixture. The strength of RCCP mixtures decreased with higher coal waste ash contents. In summary, coal waste ash enhanced the mechanical properties when combined with limestone.
Ameli et al. [83] examined the performance of asphalt mixture incorporated with varying percentages of coal waste ash of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. The coal ash waste was used as a replacement for the conventional filler. The research measured the rutting resistance and fatigue resistance of the mastics, stability, resilient modulus, dynamic creep, and moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixtures. The results indicate that the addition of coal waste ash improved the fatigue behavior of the mastics, and the fatigue behavior was further enhanced when the mastics were modified with SBS. The replacement with coal waste ash reduced the Marshall stability, resilient modulus, rutting properties, and tensile strength of the asphalt mixtures, but improved the moisture resistance.
Xu, Chen [84] investigated the effect of coal waste ash that has been retreated from coal waste by reheating, on the asphalt mastic and asphalt mixtures. The coal waste was used as a replacement in varying percentages of 20, 40, 60, and 80%. Compared to fine limestone powder, coal waste ash had a lower density, higher alkalinity, smaller particle size, and larger interior air voids. The bitumen incorporated with coal waste ash had a lower penetration value, higher softening point, and better temperature stability. The incorporation of coal waste ash reduced the Marshall stability and rutting resistance of the asphalt mixture. However, the moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixture improved significantly with the addition of CBA.
Other studies assessed the potential of using CBA as a filler in bituminous mixtures [85,86]. The high porosity and high specific surface properties of hydrated lime and/or bottom ash increased the value for the optimum binder content. The higher absorption value is due to the high porosity of the ashes, indicating that the high specific density of the mixture relative to the control mixture is due to the low specific densities of the bottom ash and lime. A higher value indicates a longer lifespan and better performance of the pavement. The pavement containing 30% hydrated lime and 70% bottom ash had the highest density, which is the recommended density for the road surface and intermediate layers with small infrastructures and light traffic [86]. However, the results of this research are contrary to the findings of an earlier study [85], which showed that using bottom ash as a filler substitute resulted in a higher rutting potential and a lower dynamic modulus than the control mixture.
Modarres and Ayar [87] examined the effect of using coal waste ash and coal waste powder as additives in the cold recycled mixture, which contains 100% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials, using the emulsified cold recycling technology, where the additives dimensions are below 0.075 mm. The addition of coal waste ash and coal waste powder in varying percentages of 3, 5, and 7% enhanced the mechanical properties of the pavement. The higher pozzolanic content in the coal waste powder enhanced the resilient modulus, tensile strength, and Marshall stability. Relative to coal waste powder, coal waste ash had a better impact on moisture sensitivity and enhanced moisture damage resistance.
Table
Table 4. Summary of the utilization of CBA in pavements.
Table 4. Summary of the utilization of CBA in pavements.
ReferencesFunctionEffect on Pavement Performance
[83]Filler in SMA mixture
  • Reduced Marshall stability, resilient modulus, tensile strength, and fatigue properties of the pavements.
  • Improved moisture resistance.
[84]Filler replacement
  • Reduced pavement stability and rutting resistance.
  • Improved moisture resistance.
[80]Fine aggregate in HMA
  • Higher OBC with 10% CBA replacement. However, there was no significant difference with a higher percentage of CBA replacement.
  • No significant change in moisture susceptibility.
  • Improved fatigue resistance.
[82]Cement replacement in roller-compacted concrete pavement
  • Increased the water/cement ratio.
  • The RCCP mixtures containing higher amounts of coal waste ash had a lower strength.
  • Coal waste ash produced better mechanical properties when used in combination with limestone.
[88]Filler replacement in asphalt mixture
  • The high specific surface area of the bottom ash particles resulted in a higher percentage of asphalt binder and better mastic quality.
  • Lower CO2 emissions in the processing of bottom ash compared to a commercial filler.
[89]Filler replacement in HMA mixture
  • Improved stability, resilient modulus, moisture resistance, and tensile strength.
[87]An additive in cold recycled mixture
  • Enhanced stability, resilient modulus, and tensile strength.
[24]Fine aggregate in HMA
  • Enhanced stability and Cantabro index.
[81]Fine and coarse aggregate replacement
  • The difference in performance was not significant after a particular period of service. The varying properties of CBA from various coal sources influence the strength of the asphalt mixture.

3.2. Aggregate Replacement in Concrete Production

There has been an increase in literature on using bottom ash as an aggregate substitute in concrete production due to its porous texture and low particle densities. The literature reported the promising potential of bottom ash as an aggregate and cement substitute in concrete, particularly to enhance the concrete’s strength and microstructural properties. During the past several decades, there has been extensive research on using alternative materials in concrete manufacturing. The benefits of lightweight concrete are reduced weight, good thermal and sound insulation, durability, strength, low expansibility, ease of use in construction, and low cost [90].
Rafieizonooz et al. [3] investigated the performance of concrete incorporated with CBA. Varying percentages of 0, 20, 50, 75, and 100% of coal bottom ash were used as fine aggregate replacement and 20% of coal fly ash (CFA) as cement replacement in concrete. After curing at 91 and 180 days, the compressive strength of CBA and control concrete increased significantly. Despite the enhanced strength after a long curing period, the compressive strength between CBA and control concrete had no significant difference; however, the flexural strength and splitting tensile strength of the 75% CBA was much higher than the control concrete. The concrete with 50, 75, and 100% CBA had a lower drying shrinkage than the control concrete. The late effect is due to the delayed hydration and slow pozzolanic activity of the CFA and CBA.
According to Singh and Siddique [17,29], adding CBA to concrete mix reduced the workability and bleeding of the concrete. The cement in 38 MPa and 34 MPa concrete grade was replaced with varying percentages of 20, 30, 40, 50, 75, and 100% CBA, and superplasticizer was used as an admixture in the 34 MPa concrete grade. The compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of CBA concrete was similar to the control concrete after 90 days of ageing. The modulus of elasticity and abrasion resistance decreased with higher CBA contents. However, the abrasion resistance improved significantly with ageing. Based on the workability and strength properties results, the researcher recommended the optimum use of CBA in concrete as up to 30% for concrete without superplasticizer and up to 50% with superplasticizer.
Zhang and Poon [31] studied the properties of lightweight concrete incorporated with 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of bottom ash as a fine aggregate replacement with a 0.39 w/c ratio. The results showed that 100% bottom ash replacement resulted in comparable workability and compressive strength relative to the regular concrete. Bottom ash concrete has a low density, and a replacement with less than 50% bottom ash resulted in a high fc/D ratio, making the lightweight concrete suitable for structural purposes. The durability test showed that the lightweight aggregate concrete containing bottom ash had a high chloride penetration. The heat insulation property test showed that the thermal conductivity decreased with higher bottom ash contents without a significant loss of strength, making the lightweight aggregate concrete suitable for use energy-saving building envelope materials.
Jang et al. [19] investigated the ecofriendly porous concrete fabricated using coal bottom ash. The coal bottom ash was used as a coarse aggregate replacement, and geopolymer was used as the binder. The combination of coal bottom ash and geopolymer produced porous concrete with a higher compressive strength relative to the porous concrete fabricated from recycled aggregate and cement paste. However, the concrete had a lower compressive strength than the regular porous concrete fabricated using gravel and cement paste. Concerning environmental impact, the concentration of heavy metals leached from the porous concrete did not exceed the maximum permissible concentration. The researchers concluded that the porous concrete could effectively immobilize the heavy metals as solidified/stabilized products.
Researchers have also investigated the effect of using coal bottom ash as fine aggregate in self-compacting concrete on the split tensile strength [41]. The fine aggregates were replaced with varying percentages of 0, 10, 20, and 30% coal bottom ash using different water–cement ratios of 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45. The split tensile strength and density of the self-compacting concrete decreased with higher CBA contents. The highest tensile strength of the concrete containing CBA was 3.28 MPa at 10% CBA replacement and 0.35 water–cement ratio. However, this value was lower than the control sample, which had the highest tensile strength of 4.25 MPa.
Kim and Lee [32] investigated the chemical composition and physical properties of bottom ash particles to determine the feasibility of using the bottom ash as fine and coarse aggregates in high-strength concrete with a compressive strength of 60–80 MPa. The fine and coarse bottom ashes were replaced in varying percentages of 25, 50, 75, and 100%. Unlike coarse bottom ash, fine bottom ash had no impact on the fresh concrete flow characteristics. The low slump value of the fresh concrete incorporated with coarse aggregate is due to the complex shape and rougher texture of the bottom ash relative to the normal aggregates. The density of the high strength concrete containing 100% fine bottom ash and 100% coarse bottom ash was less than 2000 kg/m3. The incorporation of 100% fine and coarse bottom ash reduced the modulus of elasticity by 49% relative to the control concrete. The compressive strength was not affected by the incorporation of bottom ash in the concrete mix. However, the flexural strength and modulus of rupture decreased linearly with higher percentages of bottom ash in the concrete mix.

3.3. Cement Replacement in Concrete Production

Besides using CBA as an aggregate replacement, researchers and technocrats investigated using CBA as cement replacement. The chemical properties of CBA are similar to cement as both are class F materials. The SiO2 content of CBA is greater than 25%, and the content of SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 is higher than 70%, which meets the requirement for the recycling bottom ash as cement [25,91]. Moreover, replacing cement with CBA can reduce CO2 emissions and improved energy conservation.
Cement is the most widely used material in civil constructions. However, the high amount of carbon emitted in cement production has a harmful impact on the environment. An estimated 50% of the total CO2 emissions are from cement production. The production of each ton of cement releases 0.55 tons of CO2, and an additional 0.39 tons of CO2 is emitted during the baking and grinding processes, which are the key contributors to global warming [73].
According to Singh and Bhardwaj [6], replacing a certain percentage of Portland cement with ground coal bottom ash enhanced the resistance towards carbonation, chloride penetration, acid attack, and sulphate attack. The sound absorption coefficient of the concrete improved with the incorporation of both fine and medium CBA. The concrete containing up to 30% of CBA had a lower drying shrinkage after short-term and long-term curing periods. The physical and chemical properties of ground CBA are similar to FA. The concrete containing CBA had a comparable compressive strength to the control concrete, and enhanced flexural strength.
Another study evaluated the performance of the concrete incorporating CBA when exposed to seawater [26]. The original CBA was ground in a ball mill for 20 and 30 h, and 10% of the ground CBA was used as supplementary cementitious material. The concrete containing CBA with a fineness of 3836 and 3895 cm2/g had a higher strength than the control mix after 180 days of curing in water and seawater. The concrete containing finer CBA was lighter and had reduced salt permeability. Moreover, the concrete containing CBA had a lower chloride penetration than the control mix.
A researcher investigated the short-term impact of replacing cement with 10% coal bottom ash on sulphate and chloride attack [26]. The coal bottom ash was ground for two h in a Los Angeles machine and 20 h in a ball mill grinder to obtain a particle size similar to the ordinary Portland cement. After demolding, the concrete samples were immersed in water for 28 days, followed by immersion in 5% sodium sulphate (Na2SO4) and 5% sodium chloride (NaCl) solution for additional curing of 28, 56, and 90 days. The coal bottom ash concrete cured with 5% Na2SO4 solution was comparable to the control concrete for up to 90 days. The concrete containing CBA exposed to NaCl solution for a short period had a lower strength than the control concrete, but its strength increased with a longer curing period. This result indicates that the incorporation of CBA enhanced the concrete’s resistance towards an aggressive environment.
Aydin [90] investigated the utilization of bottom ash as cement replacement to produce ecofriendly building material. The suitability of using bottom ash as cement replacement was assessed in term of its physical and mechanical properties. The CBA was used as cement replacement in varying percentages of 0, 70, 80, 85, and 100% with 5% hydrated calcium lime. The resulting lightweight composite was suitable for civil engineering applications. The slump, flow, and dry unit weight decreased with higher CBA contents. The concrete containing 70% CBA and 5% lime had a higher unconfined compressive strength and flexural strength than the composite containing only 70% CBA. The flexural strength of the final composite indicated that it is suitable for low- to medium-strength applications such as pavement, shotcrete lining, and base and subbase application.

3.4. Noise Barrier, Geotechnical Fill, Zeolite Composite, and Low-Cost Absorbent

Over the past four decades, extensive research has been conducted on noise barriers with different characteristics to protect the areas near roads, especially those with a high traffic volume [92]. Noise barrier wall, also known as the concrete wall, is one of the economic structures built to reduce noise pollution from transportation. Hannan et al. [25] investigated the production of concrete walls with varying CBA percentages that ranged from 0–100% fine aggregate replacement. The researchers reported that the values of fineness modulus of CBA were between 2.3 to 3.0, which is within the range as the fineness modulus of CBA was lower than the conventional fine aggregate specified in the BS 882:1992. The specific gravity of CBA was lower than the conventional fine aggregate due to the porous texture of CBA. The compressive strength of the concrete wall barriers did not increase linearly with higher CBA percentages, but increased with the concrete porosity, which is a good indicator for sound absorption structures. The sound absorption test to determine the acoustic performance showed that the walls containing 80–100% CBA were similar to the conventional wall and were class D absorbers; the remaining walls were class E absorbers. According to BS EN ISO 11,654:1997, the absorbers in class D absorb more than 30% of the sound, while class E absorbs between 15–25% of the sound [25].
Arenas et al. [30] studied the performance of road traffic noise reducing device prototypes from multilayer products composed of 80% bottom ash on a semi-industrial scale. The coarse bottom ash in this research had a Dp of >2.5 mm, and the Dp of the fine bottom ash was <2.5 mm. The measured acoustic performance parameters were the sound absorption coefficient and the airborne sound insulation in the reverberation room. The measured nonacoustic performance parameters were open void ratio, unit weight, compressive strength, Young’s modulus, flexural strength, fracture energy, indirect tensile strength, characteristics length, impact strength, and fire resistance. The results showed that the bottom ash-based multilayer products were in the categories A2 and B3 of the sound absorption and assessment index, similar to other commercial products. The mechanical strength of the device containing bottom ash was lower than standard and porous concretes. The fire resistance of the coal bottom ash products remained unchanged after exposure to 47.8 min of fire, and only exhibited a slight discoloration.
Arenas et al. [93] evaluated the performance of highway noise barriers incorporated with bottom ash. Portland cement mixed with different sizes of coal bottom ash (coarse, medium, and fine) was used to produce mortar composite, and the results of the acoustic properties were compared with typical porous concrete. The CBA was separated into three particle size fractions, and a multilayer composite was fabricated using the fractions in three different layers. The wall incorporated with bottom ash had a density and compressive strength of 1470 kg/m3 and 3.1 MPa. The acoustic properties of the composite containing CBA were comparable or better than the porous concrete. The wall fabricated using coarse CBA had the best sound absorption coefficient because of its porosity, while the wall fabricated with the finest CBA exhibited superior mechanical properties.
Researchers have assessed the potential of utilizing CBA in highway embankments. Theoretically, highway embankment materials must have high strength, density, and stability, good drainage properties, and low plasticity. Coal bottom ash has higher specific gravity than fly ash [94] because its high iron oxide content inhibits the transmission of dead load to the soil and supports the embankment. The application of high compaction resulted in low optimum water content and high maximum density. It also crushed the bottom ash particles and increased the density. Previous studies have shown that precautionary measures should be implemented when using bottom ash as an embankment material, especially upon including structural members and pipes in the ash [95], since mixtures of compacted ash can be corrosive.
A high bottom ash content could reduce hydraulic conductivity because of the significant effect of fine particles in bottom ash on permeability. The high permeability of kaolin mixed with CBA suits drainage application if used as backfill materials in embankments, particularly in areas with a high amount of annual rainfall [96]. The shear strength of the material or soil must be determined before beginning the construction because the ability to resist loading is a critical factor for an embankment. The friction angle of the bottom ash offers higher resistance to the rearrangement of the particles for sustained shearing due to the angular texture of bottom ash.
Researchers have investigated the conversion of coal bottom ash into zeolite X-carbon [97]. The Si and Al in CBA were the raw materials for zeolite, and the unburnt carbon was a source of activated carbon. NaOH and hydrothermal treatment at various times were used to alkali-fuse the CBA in the fabrication of zeolite X-carbon composite for hydrogen storage. The results showed that the optimum synthesis of zeolite X-carbon composite from CBA is by fusion through hydrothermal treatment at 90 °C for 15 h. The zeolite composite with the best crystallinity had a surface area of 185.824 m2/gram, micropore diameter of 0.34 nm, mesopore diameter of 3 nm, and hydrogen uptake of up to 1.66% wt at 30 °C/20 psi. These results indicated that the composite is suitable for hydrogen storage.
Besides adsorption [98], reverse osmosis, flocculation, electroflotation, and precipitation techniques are also effective methods for eliminating pollutants from water [99]. Various low-cost adsorbents, such as clay materials [100,101], and agricultural wastes, such as apricot waste [102], soy meal hull [103], rice husk [104], sugar beet pulp [105], and wheat bran [106], have been reported as effective materials in eliminating hazardous chemicals from water. Jarusiripot [13] investigated the adsorption of dye using bottom ash as an absorbent. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) classifies bottom ash as mesopores with average pore diameter ranging between 3 and 7 nm. Before using it as an absorbent, the raw bottom ash was pretreated with chemical solutions, such as hydrochloric acid (HCl), nitric acid (HNO3), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).
The results showed that bottom ash was an effective adsorbent for removing dye from wastewater even though it was not as efficient as the expensive commercially activated carbon. Because of the small surface area of the coal bottom ash, the dye absorption is dependent on the interaction between the charges of the dye molecules and the adsorbent surface. The superior absorption of the bottom ash with smaller particle sizes was due to the higher surface area of the absorbent. The adsorption capacity was also influenced by the chemical solutions used in the pretreatment process.

4. Critical Discussion

This review has shown that, at a higher percentage of CBA content, most of the CBA from various sources did not enhance the performance of the asphalt and concrete mixtures. Therefore, the CBA used as a replacement material in civil construction should be pretreated chemically or mechanically. The findings of previous research vary significantly, even at the same substitution ratio, because there was no control over the quality and constituents of the CBA. It is essential to perform a comprehensive assessment of the optimization of the materials used with the CBA because using CBA in combination with other materials, such as fly ash and superplasticizer, could enhance the mixture’s performance. Despite its promising potential, there is a need to perform more comprehensive research to determine the cost–benefit and environmental impact of utilizing CBA and developing CBA as a green construction material. There is also a need to formulate a general guideline for using CBA as an alternative material in the construction industry.

5. Conclusions

The large volume of coal bottom offers a promising alternative for the aggregates used in the construction industry to prevent the depletion of natural aggregate resources. Previous studies have shown that coal bottom ash has a good potential as a substitute material, especially in the construction industry. However, further studies need to investigate turning bottom ash waste into applicable material. In summary, the use of coal bottom ash in the fields of construction, especially in civil engineering, can be commercialized through suitable design and appropriate construction procedures. A summary of this review is as follows.
  • CBA is a class F pozzolan that contains more than 70% of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3.
  • The porous texture of CBA reduces the density of the pavement and concrete mixtures, making it a suitable lightweight aggregate in pavement and concrete production. Its porosity contributes to the ability of the CBA noise barrier wall to absorb more sound than the conventional wall.
  • The high-water absorption of the CBA particles increases the optimum binder content of the pavement mixture and the cement/water ratio in concrete production.
  • The pavement mixture incorporated with CBA exhibits enhanced moisture susceptibility. However, most research showed reduced Marshall stability, tensile strength, and resilient modulus. The low resilient modulus indicates that the mixture has a high elastic deformation, which increases its rutting resistance.
  • The optimum asphalt mixture performance is achieved with 10–30% CBA replacement. However, the performance can be enhanced by using CBA with other materials, such as fly ash, lime, and superplasticizer.
  • The concretes with higher CBA contents have reduced fresh concrete properties such as slump, bleeding, and flow because of the CBA’s interlocking characteristics, rough texture, and irregular shape.
  • The properties of the concrete improved with the curing period, and after a certain curing period, the properties are superior to conventional concrete.
  • The utilization of CBA as cement replacement is beneficial to the environment because it reduces the CO2 emissions in cement production. The heavy metals present in the raw CBA are below the permissible range.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.M.; formal analysis, S.A.M. and S.K.; investigation, S.A.M. and A.M.B.; resources, S.K. and M.R.I.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.M. and A.M.B.; writing—review and editing, S.K., H.Y.B.K., M.F.A.P., M.R.I. and M.R.K.; supervision, S.K. and M.R.K.; funding acquisition, S.K. and H.Y.B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the Universiti Malaysia Perlis, grant name “RESMATE 9001- 00623” and the Universiti Tenaga Nasional (J5100D4103-BOLDREFRESH2025-CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in this research can be provided upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Universiti Malaya, Universiti Malaysia Perlis and Universiti Tenaga Nasional Malaysia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lior, N. Sustainable energy development: The present (2009) situation and possible paths to the future q. Energy 2010, 35, 3976–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yao, Z.T.; Ji, X.S.; Sarker, P.K.; Tang, J.H.; Ge, L.Q.; Xia, M.S.; Xi, Y.Q. Earth-Science Reviews A comprehensive review on the applications of coal fl y ash. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2015, 141, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Rafieizonooz, M.; Mirza, J.; Salim, M.R.; Hussin, M.W.; Khankhaje, E. Investigation of coal bottom ash and fly ash in concrete as replacement for sand and cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abubakar, A.U.; Baharudin, K.S. Tanjung Bin Coal Bottom Ash: From Waste to Concrete Material Tanjung Bin Coal Bottom Ash: From Waste to Concrete Material. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Muthusamy, K.; Rasid, M.H.; Jokhio, G.A.; Mokhtar Albshir Budiea, A.; Hussin, M.W.; Mirza, J. Coal bottom ash as sand replacement in concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, 117507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Singh, N.; Shehnazdeep; Bhardwaj, A. Reviewing the role of coal bottom ash as an alternative of cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 233, 117276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmaruzzaman, M. A review on the utilization of fly ash. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 327–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Heidrich, C.; Feuerborn, H.; Weir, A. Coal Combustion Products: A Global Perspective. In Proceedings of the World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, Lexington, KY, USA, 22–25 April 2013; Available online: http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Decision_Tree/subscriber/Tree/DescriptionTextLinks/International%20flyash%20perspective.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  9. Sutcu, M.; Erdogmus, E.; Gencel, O.; Gholampour, A.; Atan, E.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Recycling of bottom ash and fly ash wastes in eco-friendly clay brick production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kumar, D.; Kumar, R.; Abbass, M. Study The Effect of Coal Bottom Ash on Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate in Concrete With Sugarcane Molasses as an Admixture. Int. J. Sci. Res. Educ. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Souad, E.M.E.A.; Moussaoui, R.; Monkade, M.; Lahlou, K.; Hasheminejad, N.; Margaritis, A.; Bergh, W. Van den Lime Treatment of Coal Bottom Ash for Use in Road Pavements: Application to EL Jadida Zone in Morocco. Materials 2019, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lokeshappa, B.; Kumar, A. Behaviour of Metals in Coal Fly Ash Ponds. Apcbee Procedia 2012, 1, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Jarusiripot, C. Removal of Reactive Dye by Adsorption over Chemical Pretreatment Coal based Bottom Ash. Procedia Chem. 2014, 9, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Baite, E.; Messan, A.; Hannawi, K.; Tsobnang, F.; Prince, W. Physical and transfer properties of mortar containing coal bottom ash aggregates from Tefereyre (Niger). Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 919–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mangi, S.A.; Wan Ibrahim, M.H.; Jamaluddin, N.; Arshad, M.F.; Memon, F.A.; Putra Jaya, R.; Shahidan, S. A Review on Potential Use of Coal Bottom Ash as a Supplementary Cementing Material in Sustainable Concrete Construction. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2018, 10, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Rathnayake, M.; Julnipitawong, P.; Tangtermsirikul, S.; Toochinda, P. Utilization of coal fly ash and bottom ash as solid sorbents for sulfur dioxide reduction from coal fired power plant: Life cycle assessment and applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 934–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Singh, M.; Siddique, R. Effect of coal bottom ash as partial replacement of sand on workability and strength properties of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Menéndez, E.; Álvaro, A.M.; Hernández, M.T.; Parra, J.L. New methodology for assessing the environmental burden of cement mortars with partial replacement of coal bottom ash and fl y ash. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 133, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jang, J.G.; Ahn, Y.B.; Souri, H.; Lee, H.K. A novel eco-friendly porous concrete fabricated with coal ash and geopolymeric binder: Heavy metal leaching characteristics and compressive strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 79, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singh, M.; Siddique, R. Compressive strength, drying shrinkage and chemical resistance of concrete incorporating coal bottom ash as partial or total replacement of sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, R.G.; Li, D.; Jeon, C.H. Experimental investigation of ignition behavior for coal rank using a flat flame burner at a high heating rate. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 2014, 54, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Gooi, S.; Mousa, A.A.; Kong, D. A critical review and gap analysis on the use of coal bottom ash as a substitute constituent in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 121752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Antoni; Klarens, K.; Indranata, M.; Al Jamali, L.; Hardjito, D. The use of bottom ash for replacing fine aggregate in concrete paving blocks. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Colonna, P.; Berloco, N.; Ranieri, V.; Shuler, S.T. Application of Bottom Ash for Pavement Binder Course. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 53, 961–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hannan, N.I.R.R.; Shaidan, S.; Ali, N.; Bunnori, N.M.; Mohd Zuki, S.S.; Wan Ibrahim, M.H. Acoustic and non-acoustic performance of coal bottom ash concrete as sound absorber for wall concrete. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, e00399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mangi, S.A.; Wan Ibrahim, M.H.; Jamaluddin, N.; Arshad, M.F.; Putra Jaya, R. Short-term effects of sulphate and chloride on the concrete containing coal bottom ash as supplementary cementitious material. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2019, 22, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hashemi, S.S.G.; Mahmud, H.B.; Ghuan, T.C.; Chin, A.B.; Kuenzel, C.; Ranjbar, N. Safe disposal of coal bottom ash by solidification and stabilization techniques. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Singh, N.; Mithulraj, M.; Arya, S. Utilization of coal bottom ash in recycled concrete aggregates based self compacting concrete blended with metakaolin. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, M.; Siddique, R. Strength properties and micro-structural properties of concrete containing coal bottom ash as partial replacement of fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arenas, C.; Leiva, C.; Vilches, L.F.; Cifuentes, H.; Rodríguez-Galán, M. Technical specifications for highway noise barriers made of coal bottom ash-based sound absorbing concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 95, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, B.; Poon, C.S. Use of Furnace Bottom Ash for producing lightweight aggregate concrete with thermal insulation properties. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, H.K.; Lee, H.K. Use of power plant bottom ash as fine and coarse aggregates in high-strength concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1115–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Topçu, I.B.; Bilir, T. Effect of bottom ash as fine aggregate on shrinkage cracking of mortars. ACI Mater. J. 2010, 107, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Onprom, P.; Chaimoon, K.; Cheerarot, R. Influence of Bottom Ash Replacements as Fine Aggregate on the Property of Cellular Concrete with Various Foam Contents. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Milad, A.; Ali, A.S.B.; Babalghaith, A.M.; Memon, Z.A.; Mashaan, N.S.; Arafa, S.; Nur, N.I. Utilisation of waste-based geopolymer in asphalt pavement modification and construction; a review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wie, Y.M.; Lee, K. Composition design of the optimum bloating activation condition for artificial lightweight aggregate using coal ash. J. Korean Ceram. Soc. 2020, 57, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sigvardsen, N.M.; Ottosen, L.M. Characterization of coal bio ash from wood pellets and low-alkali coal fly ash and use as partial cement replacement in mortar. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 95, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ge, X.; Zhou, M.; Wang, H.; Liu, Z.; Wu, H.; Chen, X. Preparation and characterization of ceramic foams from chromium slag and coal bottom ash. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 11888–11891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Argiz, C.; Sanjuán, M.Á.; Menéndez, E. Coal Bottom Ash for Portland Cement Production. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Oruji, S.; Brake, N.A.; Nalluri, L.; Guduru, R.K. Strength activity and microstructure of blended ultra-fine coal bottom ash-cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ibrahim, M.H.W.; Hamzah, A.F.; Jamaluddin, N.; Ramadhansyah, P.J.; Fadzil, A.M. Split Tensile Strength on Self-compacting Concrete Containing Coal Bottom Ash. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 2280–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Siddique, R. Compressive strength, water absorption, sorptivity, abrasion resistance and permeability of self-compacting concrete containing coal bottom ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1444–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Syahrul, M.; Sani, M.; Muftah, F.; Muda, Z. The Properties of Special Concrete Using Washed Bottom Ash (WBA) as Partial Sand Replacement. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2010, 1, 65–76. [Google Scholar]
  44. Alinezhad, M.; Sahaf, A. Investigation of the fatigue characteristics of warm stone matrix asphalt (WSMA) containing electric arc furnace (EAF) steel slag as coarse aggregate and Sasobit as warm mix additive. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ameli, A.; Hossein Pakshir, A.; Babagoli, R.; Norouzi, N.; Nasr, D.; Davoudinezhad, S. Experimental investigation of the influence of Nano TiO2 on rheological properties of binders and performance of stone matrix asphalt mixtures containing steel slag aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265, 120750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pang, B.; Zhou, Z.; Xu, H. Utilization of carbonated and granulated steel slag aggregate in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 454–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, S.; Zhang, G.; Wang, B.; Wu, M. Mechanical strengths and durability properties of pervious concretes with blended steel slag and natural aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mathew, S.P.; Nadir, Y.; Arif, M.M. Experimental study of thermal properties of concrete with partial replacement of coarse aggregate by coconut shell. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 27, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nadir, Y.; Sujatha, A. Durability Properties of Coconut Shell Aggregate Concrete. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1920–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kanojia, A.; Jain, S.K. Performance of coconut shell as coarse aggregate in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 140, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ahmad Zawawi, M.N.A.; Muthusamy, K.; Abdul Majeed, A.P.P.; Muazu Musa, R.; Mokhtar Albshir Budiea, A. Mechanical properties of oil palm waste lightweight aggregate concrete with fly ash as fine aggregate replacement. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 27, 100924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mo, K.H.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Liu, M.Y.J.; Lim, J. Assessing some durability properties of sustainable lightweight oil palm shell concrete incorporating slag and manufactured sand. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Devulapalli, L.; Kothandaraman, S.; Sarang, G. Evaluation of rejuvenator’s effectiveness on the reclaimed asphalt pavement incorporated stone matrix asphalt mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 224, 909–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Devulapalli, L.; Kothandaraman, S.; Sarang, G. Effect of rejuvenating agents on stone matrix asphalt mixtures incorporating RAP. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nwakaire, C.M.; Yap, S.P.; Yuen, C.W.; Onn, C.C.; Koting, S.; Babalghaith, A.M. Laboratory study on recycled concrete aggregate based asphalt mixtures for sustainable flexible pavement surfacing. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pourtahmasb, M.S.; Karim, M.R. Performance Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt and Hot Mix. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pourtahmasb, M.S.; Karim, M.R.; Shamshirband, S. Resilient modulus prediction of asphalt mixtures containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy methodology. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pourtahmasb, M.S.; Karim, M.R. Utilization of Recycled Concrete Aggregates in Stone Mastic Asphalt Mixtures. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Huang, Q.; Qian, Z.; Hu, J.; Zheng, D. Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt Containing Ceramic Waste Aggregate for Cooling Asphalt Pavement. Materials 2020, 13, 2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Gautam, P.K.; Kalla, P.; Nagar, R.; Agrawal, R.; Jethoo, A.S. Laboratory investigations on hot mix asphalt containing mining waste as aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 168, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bui, N.K.; Satomi, T.; Takahashi, H. Improvement of mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete basing on a new combination method between recycled aggregate and natural aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hamada, H.M.; Yahaya, F.M.; Muthusamy, K.; Jokhio, G.A.; Humada, A.M. Fresh and hardened properties of palm oil clinker lightweight aggregate concrete incorporating Nano-palm oil fuel ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 214, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Abutaha, F.; Razak, H.A.; Ibrahim, H.A.; Ghayeb, H.H. Adopting particle-packing method to develop high strength palm oil clinker concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 131, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Omrane, M.; Kenai, S.; Kadri, E.H.; Aït-Mokhtar, A. Performance and durability of self compacting concrete using recycled concrete aggregates and natural pozzolan. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lu, J.X.; Yan, X.; He, P.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable design of pervious concrete using waste glass and recycled concrete aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 1102–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adhikary, S.K.; Rudzionis, Z. Influence of expanded glass aggregate size, aerogel and binding materials volume on the properties of lightweight concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 32, 712–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, X.; Fan, Z.; Li, L.; Wang, H.; Huang, M. Durability evaluation study for crumb rubber-asphalt pavement. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Malarvizhi, G.; Senthil, N.; Kamaraj, C. A Study on Recycling Of Crumb Rubber and Low Density Polyethylene Blend on Stone Matrix Asphalt. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2012, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mohammed Babalghaith, A.; Koting, S.; Ramli Sulong, N.H.; Karim, M.R.; Mohammed AlMashjary, B. Performance evaluation of stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures with palm oil clinker (POC) as fine aggregate replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 120546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Babalghaith, A.M.; Koting, S.; Ramli Sulong, N.H.; Karim, M.R.; Mohammed, S.A.; Ibrahim, M.R. Effect of palm oil clinker (POC) aggregate on the mechanical properties of stone mastic asphalt (SMA) mixtures. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Nayaka, R.R.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Yusoff, S.B.; Ganasan, R. Performance evaluation of masonry grout containing high volume of palm oil industry by-products. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 1202–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Inayat, A.; Inayat, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Sulaiman, S.A.; Raza, M.; Yusup, S. Parametric analysis and optimization for the catalytic air gasification of palm kernel shell using coal bottom ash as catalyst. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Singh, N.; Mithulraj, M.; Arya, S. Influence of coal bottom ash as fine aggregates replacement on various properties of concretes: A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ankur, N.; Singh, N. Performance of cement mortars and concretes containing coal bottom ash: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kim, H.K.; Lee, H.K. Coal bottom ash in field of civil engineering: A review of advanced applications and environmental considerations. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 19, 1802–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Atiyeh, M.; Aydin, E. Data for bottom ash and marble powder utilization as an alternative binder for sustainable concrete construction. Data Br. 2020, 29, 105160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Jamora, J.B.; Gudia, S.E.L.; Go, A.W.; Giduquio, M.B.; Loretero, M.E. Potential CO2 reduction and cost evaluation in use and transport of coal ash as cement replacement: A case in the Philippines. Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bajare, D.; Bumanis, G.; Upeniece, L. Coal combustion bottom ash as microfiller with pozzolanic properties for traditional concrete. Procedia Eng. 2013, 57, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Gautam, P.K.; Kalla, P.; Jethoo, A.S.; Agrawal, R.; Singh, H. Sustainable use of waste in flexible pavement: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 180, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yoo, B.S.; Park, D.W.; Vo, H.V. Evaluation of Asphalt Mixture Containing Coal Ash. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Ksaibati, K.; Stephen, J. Utilization of Bottom Ash in Asphalt Mixes; No. MCP Report No. 99–104A; Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, University of Wyoming: Laramie, WY, USA, 1999; Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.593.9395&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 1 June 2021).
  82. Hesami, S.; Modarres, A.; Soltaninejad, M.; Madani, H. Mechanical properties of roller compacted concrete pavement containing coal waste and limestone powder as partial replacements of cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 111, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ameli, A.; Babagoli, R.; Norouzi, N.; Jalali, F.; Poorheydari Mamaghani, F. Laboratory evaluation of the effect of coal waste ash (CWA) and rice husk ash (RHA) on performance of asphalt mastics and Stone matrix asphalt (SMA) mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, 117557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Xu, P.; Chen, Z.; Cai, J.; Pei, J.; Gao, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J. The effect of retreated coal wastes as filler on the performance of asphalt mastics and mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 203, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Goh, S.W.; You, Z. A preliminary study of the mechanical properties of asphalt mixture containing bottom ash. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2008, 35, 1114–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. López-López, E.; Vega Zamanillo, Á.; Calzada-Pérez, M.; Taborga-Sedano, M.A. Use of bottom ash from thermal power plant and lime as filler in bituminous mixtures. Mater. Constr. 2015, 65, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Modarres, A.; Ayar, P. Coal waste application in recycled asphalt mixtures with bitumen emulsion. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Suárez-Macías, J.; Terrones-Saeta, J.M.; Iglesias-Godino, F.J.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A. Evaluation of physical, chemical, and environmental properties of biomass bottom ash for use as a filler in bituminous mixtures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Modarres, A.; Rahmanzadeh, M. Application of coal waste powder as filler in hot mix asphalt. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 476–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Aydin, E. Novel coal bottom ash waste composites for sustainable construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. García Arenas, C.; Marrero, M.; Leiva, C.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Vilches Arenas, L.F. High fire resistance in blocks containing coal combustion fly ashes and bottom ash. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1783–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lacasta, A.M.; Penaranda, A.; Cantalapiedra, I.R.; Auguet, C.; Bures, S.; Urrestarazu, M. Acoustic evaluation of modular greenery noise barriers. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Arenas, C.; Leiva, C.; Vilches, L.F.; Cifuentes, H. Use of co-combustion bottom ash to design an acoustic absorbing material for highway noise barriers. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2316–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Awang, A.R.; Marto, A.; Makhtar, A.M. Geotechnical properties of tanjung bin coal ash mixtures for backfill materials in embankment construction. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2011, 16 L, 1515–1531. [Google Scholar]
  95. Kim, B.; Prezzi, M.; Rodrigo, S. Geotechnical Properties of Fly and Bottom Ash Mixtures for Use in Highway Embankments. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2007, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jorat, M.E.; Marto, A.; Namazi, E.; Amin, M.F.M. Engineering characteristics of kaolin mixed with various percentages of bottom ash. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2011, 16 H, 841–850. [Google Scholar]
  97. Widiastuti, N.; Hidayah, M.Z.N.; Praseytoko, D.; Fansuri, H. Synthesis of zeolite X-carbon from coal bottom ash for hydrogen storage material. Adv. Mater. Lett. 2014, 5, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Wang, S.; Boyjoo, Y.; Choueib, A.; Zhu, Z.H. Removal of dyes from aqueous solution using fly ash and red mud. Water Res. 2005, 39, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Daneshvar, N.; Ayazloo, M.; Khataee, A.R.; Pourhassan, M. Biological decolorization of dye solution containing Malachite Green by microalgae Cosmarium sp. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 1176–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Hajjaji, M.; Alami, A.; Bouadili, A. El Removal of methylene blue from aqueous solution by fibrous clay minerals. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 135, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Catalfamo, P.; Arrigo, I.; Primerano, P.; Corigliano, F. Efficiency of a zeolitized pumice waste as a low-cost heavy metals adsorbent. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 134, 140–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Önal, Y. Kinetics of adsorption of dyes from aqueous solution using activated carbon prepared from waste apricot. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 1719–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Arami, M.; Limaee, N.Y.; Mahmoodi, N.M.; Tabrizi, N.S. Equilibrium and kinetics studies for the adsorption of direct and acid dyes from aqueous solution by soy meal hull. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 135, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Srivastava, V.C.; Mall, I.D.; Mishra, I.M. Characterization of mesoporous rice husk ash (RHA) and adsorption kinetics of metal ions from aqueous solution onto RHA. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 134, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Aksu, Z.; Isoglu, I.A. Use of agricultural waste sugar beet pulp for the removal of Gemazol turquoise blue-G reactive dye from aqueous solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Papinutti, L.; Mouso, N.; Forchiassin, F. Removal and degradation of the fungicide dye malachite green from aqueous solution using the system wheat bran-Fomes sclerodermeus. Enzyme. Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 848–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohammed, S.A.; Koting, S.; Katman, H.Y.B.; Babalghaith, A.M.; Abdul Patah, M.F.; Ibrahim, M.R.; Karim, M.R. A Review of the Utilization of Coal Bottom Ash (CBA) in the Construction Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148031

AMA Style

Mohammed SA, Koting S, Katman HYB, Babalghaith AM, Abdul Patah MF, Ibrahim MR, Karim MR. A Review of the Utilization of Coal Bottom Ash (CBA) in the Construction Industry. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):8031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohammed, Syakirah Afiza, Suhana Koting, Herda Yati Binti Katman, Ali Mohammed Babalghaith, Muhamad Fazly Abdul Patah, Mohd Rasdan Ibrahim, and Mohamed Rehan Karim. 2021. "A Review of the Utilization of Coal Bottom Ash (CBA) in the Construction Industry" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 8031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop