Next Article in Journal
The Politics of Green Buildings: Neoliberal Environmental Governance and LEED’s Uneven Geography in Istanbul
Next Article in Special Issue
From Brundtland to Net-Zero Buildings: Governing Sustainable Development in the Built Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Landscape Enhancement Design of Street-Facing Façades and Adjacent Public Spaces in Old Residential Areas: A Commercial Activity Optimization Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Residential Indoor Humidity During Cooling Operation: Energy Benefits Without Compromising Comfort, Health, or Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/buildings16020362
buildings-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Toward Low-Carbon Construction: A Review of Red Mud Utilization in Cementitious Materials and Geopolymers for Sustainability and Cost Benefits

by
Zhiping Li
1,2,3
1
State Key Laboratory of Safety and Resilience of Civil Engineering in Mountain Area, East China Jiaotong University, Nanchang 330013, China
2
School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, East China Jiaotong University, Nanchang 330013, China
3
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
Buildings 2026, 16(2), 362; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020362
Submission received: 25 December 2025 / Revised: 9 January 2026 / Accepted: 13 January 2026 / Published: 15 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Energy Efficiency and Low-Carbon Pathways in Buildings)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Red mud (RM), an industrial byproduct generated during bauxite refining, has accumulated to more than 5 billion tons worldwide, posing serious environmental challenges. In response, substantial research over recent decades has focused on the sustainable utilization of RM, particularly in the field of construction materials. This review first summarizes the generation process and chemical composition of RM, and then systematically examines its potential applications in the production of artificial aggregates, partial replacement of cementitious materials, and synthesis of geopolymers. Existing studies demonstrate that RM exhibits considerable potential in construction applications: when used as an aggregate, it can reduce concrete porosity, enhance compressive strength, and improve overall mechanical performance. Moreover, RM can partially substitute cement or serve as a geopolymer precursor, contributing to the immobilization of toxic elements such as Pb and Cr while simultaneously improving the mechanical properties of both cementitious systems and geopolymers. The reactivity and performance of RM-based materials can be further enhanced through carbonation curing and other modification techniques. Finally, this review highlights the significant sustainability and economic benefits of RM-based concrete, supported by life-cycle assessment and cost–benefit analyses.

1. Introduction

Global alumina production reached 1.42 billion tons in 2024, with major contributions from China, Australia, Brazil, and India (Figure 1). China alone produced 840 million tons of alumina, accounting for more than half of the global output and representing a 1.9% increase compared with the previous year [1]. However, the continued growth in alumina production has led to the accumulation of large quantities of industrial by-products, most notably RM, a highly alkaline residue generated during the conversion of bauxite to alumina. Typically, 1–1.5 tons of RM are produced for every ton of alumina, resulting in an estimated annual global RM generation of approximately 175.5 million tons [2,3,4]. As illustrated in Figure 2, China’s annual RM output ranges from 75 to 115 million tons, while its overall utilization rate remained at only about 12% in 2024 [5]. By the end of 2024, the global stockpile of RM had exceeded 5 billion tons and continues to increase at a rate of roughly 200 million tons per year. Such large-scale landfilling of RM not only occupies extensive land resources but also represents a significant loss of valuable materials and poses serious environmental and human health risks [6]. Consequently, the safe disposal and effective utilization of RM have become critical challenges for the sustainable development of the global bauxite and alumina industry.
The most effective strategy for mitigating the environmental risks associated with RM is its valorization through resource utilization [7]. In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to converting RM into RM-based artificial aggregates (RAAs) as substitutes for natural aggregates (NAs) in concrete production [8,9,10]. This approach not only supports the sustainable development of the concrete industry but also offers several practical advantages. Owing to their relatively low density, RAAs reduce the self-weight of concrete, thereby improving the handling efficiency of precast elements and lowering transportation costs [11]. In addition, RAAs exhibit good freeze–thaw resistance, and concrete incorporating RAAs generally achieves compressive strength comparable to that of conventional concrete containing NAs. RAAs can be produced using various techniques, including sintering [12], cold bonding [13], alkali activation [14], and accelerated carbonation [15]. Beyond aggregate production, extensive research has also explored the use of RM as a cementitious material in sustainable concrete systems [16,17,18]. One approach involves the partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) with RM. The inherent alkalinity of RM helps maintain a stable pH environment during cement hydration, thereby reducing OPC consumption and the associated environmental burden [19]. Moreover, reactive mineral phases in RM can interact with OPC hydration products to form stable secondary phases, enhancing pozzolanic activity and improving the integrity of the cementitious matrix [20]. Alternatively, RM rich in aluminosilicate phases can be activated using highly alkaline solutions to produce geopolymers. Properly designed RM-based geopolymers have been reported to exhibit high mechanical strength, excellent thermal stability, strong adhesion to various substrates, good chemical durability, and favorable cost performance [21,22,23]. Collectively, the utilization of RM for RAA production, partial OPC substitution, and geopolymer synthesis represents a technically viable and environmentally promising pathway.
This review begins with an overview of the fundamental characteristics of RM, including its generation process, chemical and mineralogical composition, and the challenges arising from its high alkalinity. It then examines recent advances in the utilization of RM for the production of RAAs, cementitious materials, and geopolymers, with a systematic discussion of the underlying mechanisms and their influence on material performance. In addition, the environmental and ecological impacts of RM-based composites are quantitatively evaluated in comparison with OPC concrete, with particular emphasis on embodied carbon, embodied energy, and material costs. Overall, this review demonstrates the technical feasibility and sustainability benefits of RM valorization and provides insights into its potential role in advancing circular economy practices within the construction industry.

2. Characterization of Red Mud: From Waste to Resource

2.1. Production Process and Physical Properties

In recent years, the rapid expansion of the global bauxite industry has been accompanied by a marked increase in the generation of RM. More than 95% of the world’s alumina is produced via the Bayer process, in which alumina is extracted from bauxite using concentrated sodium hydroxide solutions. RM is mainly generated during the digestion of aluminosilicate minerals in this process [4].
RM is produced through a sequence of operations in the conventional Bayer process, including grinding, leaching, filtration, and precipitation. Initially, crushed bauxite is mixed with a caustic soda solution and lime, and the resulting slurry is heated to approximately 100 °C for pre-desilication. During subsequent digestion at temperatures between 140 °C and 280 °C, aluminum-bearing minerals dissolve in the hot sodium hydroxide solution, forming a supersaturated sodium aluminate liquor. RM is then separated from the sodium aluminate solution by sedimentation, after which the settled residues are transferred to washing tanks to recover residual caustic soda prior to final discharge [24]. RM is distinguished by its strong alkalinity, with pH values typically ranging from 10 to 13, which arises from its complex chemical composition. It contains soluble alkaline species, such as NaOH, Na2CO3, NaAlO2, and Na2SiO3, as well as various metal oxides (MemOn) that can undergo double-substitution reactions with alkalis to form sodium-containing compounds, such as Na2MeO(2n/m). In addition, reactions between bauxite components and concentrated alkali lead to the formation of alkaline mineral phases, including sodium pyroxene (3Na2O•Al2O3•6SiO2•Na2SO4), nepheline (Na6[AlSiO4]2•CaCO3), and amorphous alkaline products [25,26]. The principal chemical reactions involved in RM formation are summarized in Equations (1)–(6).
Al2O3 + 2NaOH→2NaAlO2 + H2O
SiO2 + 2NaOH→Na2SiO3 + H2O
2NaOH + CO2→Na2CO3 + H2O
MemOn + 2nNaOH→mNa2MeO(2n/m) + nH2O
2NaAlO2 + 6Na2SiO3 + 8H2O + Na2SO4→3Na2O•Al2O3•6SiO2•Na2SO4 + 2H2O
2NaAl(OH)4 + 2NaOH + 2SiO2 + CaCO3→Na6[AlSiO4]2•CaCO3 + 5H2O
These insoluble alkaline compounds are difficult to remove through conventional washing because of their stable crystal structures. Moreover, the dissolution equilibrium between the RM particle surface and the surrounding solution is established only slowly, resulting in the gradual diffusion of alkaline components from the particle interior to the exterior. This persistent alkalinity significantly constrains the reuse of RM in construction materials, and consequently, most RM is ultimately stored in disposal facilities at alumina refineries.

2.2. Chemical and Mineralogical Composition

The major oxide constituents of RM are generally consistent worldwide; however, their relative proportions vary substantially depending on the mineralogy of the processed bauxite and the operational conditions employed during alumina refining. Alumina can be recovered using the Bayer process, the sintering process, or a combined process [27]. As summarized in Table 1, RM exhibits pronounced differences in chemical and mineralogical composition as a result of these processing routes. RM produced via the Bayer process is mainly composed of boehmite, calcite, and sodium aluminosilicates, whereas RM generated by the sintering and combined processes is dominated by dicalcium silicate owing to its higher calcium content. Compared with sintering- and combined-process RM, Bayer-process RM typically contains lower CaO but higher concentrations of Al2O3, Fe2O3, and Na2O. The characteristics of combined-process RM are therefore more closely aligned with those of sintering-process RM. Trace radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium present in RM raise concerns regarding long-term environmental exposure in construction applications. Studies indicate that encapsulation in cementitious or geopolymer matrices can effectively immobilize these elements, reducing leaching risks.
Table 2 compares the chemical composition of RM from different regions worldwide. RM originating from countries outside China generally exhibits higher Fe2O3 contents, which may hinder geopolymerization and adversely affect the performance of the resulting materials [28]. In contrast, RM from China tends to contain higher SiO2 levels, likely reflecting regional variations in bauxite mineralogy and refining practices. In addition, RM from China and Russia shows relatively higher CaO contents compared with RM from other regions. On a global basis, the average contents of CaO, Al2O3, SiO2, and Fe2O3 in RM are approximately 9.89 wt%, 12.43 wt%, 19.11 wt%, and 33.57 wt%, respectively. The variability in key oxides such as Fe2O3 and SiO2 significantly influences the suitability of RM for different applications. High Fe2O3 content may hinder geopolymerization by reducing aluminosilicate availability and increasing crystallinity, whereas moderate Fe2O3 can contribute to strength through filler effects. Moreover, RM commonly contains trace amounts of naturally occurring radioactive elements, such as uranium and thorium, which further constrain its large-scale utilization [29].
Table 1. Mineral and chemical composition based on different processes of RM [30,31].
Table 1. Mineral and chemical composition based on different processes of RM [30,31].
TypesBayerSinteringCombined
Main mineralsBoehmite, Anorthite, Calcite,
Sodium aluminosilicate,
Perovskite, Hematite, etc.		Boehmite, Perovskite, Calcite,
Nepheline, Dicalcium silicate,
Tetracalcium aluminoferrite, etc.		Dicalcium silicate, Calcite,
Nepheline, Hematite or Magnetite,
Tetracalcium aluminoferrite, etc.
Composition (wt%)SiO23–2020–2320.0–20.5
CaO2–846–4943.7–46.8
Al2O310–205–75.4–7.5
Fe2O330–607–106.1–7.5
MgO/1.2–1.6/
Na2O2–101.2–1.62.8–3.0
K2O/0.2–0.40.5–0.7
K2Otrace-102.5–3.06.1–7.7
LOI10–156–10/
Table 2. Disparities in chemical composition of RM around the world.
Table 2. Disparities in chemical composition of RM around the world.
Ref.RegionComposition (wt%)LOI
SiO2Al2O3CaONa2OFe2O3MgOTiO2P2O5SO3K2O
[32]Shangdong, China21.907.9638.842.326.571.60///0.4117.42
[33]Shangxi, China29.1830.0115.968.228.710.892.7/2.730.88.84
[34]Guizhou, China25.908.538.403.105.01.504.40//0.2011.10
[35]Australia12.224.394.384.930.60.263.25//0.6311.50
[36]Brazil16.6230.354.1210.827.5/3.980.40.062.8413.00
[37]India9.8919.312.415.7241.9/9.120.31//10.10
[38]Russia8.8511.0322.030.437.831.023.630.53/0.1114.00
[39]United Arab Emirates6.012.21.01.557.0/8.10.50.14//
[40]Saudi Arabia19.6629.795.0924.0512.970.45.120.291.650.0911.51
[41]Canada10.5222.121.366.8238.920.17.610.210.590.5510.51
[42]Vietnam4.2518.980.872.0649.9/5.62//0.0516.52
[43]Jamaica3.916.46.21.748.5/6.7///13.10
[44]Ireland9.6523.66.45.330.4/17.85///10.10
[45]Kazakhstan11.1910.476.337.3346.95/7.9////
[46]Indonesia14.719.222.617.5438.50.372.52//0.312.36
[47]Germany5.416.25.224.044.80.1312.330.450.310.2710.20
[48]Greece5.3425.099.051.9942.68/4.98///10.04
[47]United States8.5018.407.736.1035.500.096.311.190.480.4714.2

3. Utilization Pathways in Low-Carbon Construction Materials

The valorization of RM in construction materials can be approached through multiple pathways, each with distinct technological, environmental, and economic implications. This review focuses on three prominent routes: (1) artificial aggregate production, (2) partial cement replacement, and (3) geopolymer synthesis. These pathways were selected based on their technological readiness, potential for large-scale application, and alignment with circular economy principles.

3.1. Use in Artificial Aggregate Preparation

The conversion of industrial solid waste into artificial aggregates has been widely recognized as an effective strategy for waste valorization and the development of sustainable construction materials [49]. Aggregates account for approximately 60–80% of the total volume of concrete [50]; however, the large-scale extraction of NAs leads to resource depletion and substantial environmental degradation, thereby disrupting ecological balance. In this context, the production of artificial aggregates from industrial solid waste offers a viable alternative by reducing dependence on natural resources and supporting more sustainable construction practices. RM has attracted increasing attention as a promising raw material for the production of RAAs, as its incorporation can significantly improve the microstructural characteristics and mechanical performance of the aggregates. Previous studies have shown that the addition of 30% RM can reduce aggregate porosity by 40.39%, resulting in a denser internal structure and a 39.5% increase in compressive strength [15]. Similarly, when 30% RM is blended with other industrial solid wastes and subjected to alkali activation followed by steam curing at 90 °C, the porosity is further reduced to 34.4%, while the crushing strength increases to 9.5 MPa [7]. Additionally, the inclusion of RAAs in concrete improves axial compressive behavior and increases the tensile-to-compressive strength ratio relative to conventional concrete. When RAAs replace 25–100% of NAs by volume, the 28-day compressive strength of geopolymer concrete reaches 86.6% of that of reference concrete. This performance improvement is mainly attributed to the presence of reactive oxides in RM during geopolymerization, which promote filler effects, densify the aggregate structure, reduce internal porosity, and strengthen the interfacial transition zone between aggregates and the surrounding matrix [50].

3.2. Use as a Cement Replacement and Geopolymers

Aligned with sustainable development objectives, the reuse of industrial wastes and by-products in concrete and mortar production has attracted increasing attention in recent years. Industrial residues capable of reacting with calcium hydroxide are commonly employed as supplementary cementitious materials. When used as partial replacements for OPC, aluminosilicate-rich wastes react with portlandite to form additional calcium silicate hydrate, thereby enhancing the mechanical performance of cementitious systems. RM, which contains substantial amounts of calcium silicates and amorphous aluminosilicate phases, exhibits pronounced cementitious and hydraulic properties [51]. Recent studies demonstrate that RM can serve as a primary geopolymer precursor when activated with suitable alkali solutions. The concentration of alkali activators significantly influences dissolution kinetics, gel formation, and final mechanical properties. Higher alkali dosage generally enhances reactivity but may increase shrinkage and cost. Desulfurized and modified RM has been applied as an activator for supersulfated OPC, effectively accelerating hydration and improving mechanical properties [52]. In addition, RM promotes CO2 uptake and contributes to pH regulation during carbonation curing, thereby enhancing the environmental performance of the resulting materials [53]. However, excessively high RM replacement levels may suppress strength development under carbonation curing conditions [54]. Beyond cementitious applications, OPC-modified RM-based silty soils have demonstrated favorable dynamic properties and strong engineering potential [55]. In geopolymer systems, alkali activation of amorphous aluminosilicates leads to the formation of a stable three-dimensional network composed of interconnected SiO4 and AlO4 tetrahedra linked by bridging oxygens [56]. Recent studies have shown that the combined use of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (FA) and RM as composite alkali activators can produce high-performance geopolymers, achieving compressive strengths of up to 57.6 MPa while significantly reducing the leaching of toxic elements [57]. Furthermore, geopolymers synthesized entirely from industrial solid wastes such as RM, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), and ferrochrome slag are effective in immobilizing both Cr(III) and Cr(VI), thereby substantially improving environmental performance [58].

4. Sustainability and Economic Assessment

Sustainability and cost analyses offer valuable insights into the environmental impacts of geopolymer concrete by evaluating carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic costs across the entire life cycle from raw material production (including activators and precursors) to end-of-life disposal. This assessment framework has been widely applied in recent studies [59,60,61,62]. Research indicates that the use of precursors derived from industrial by-products, wastes, or other sustainable resources, in combination with solid or liquid activators, promotes resource recycling and reduces the environmental footprint associated with OPC production. In particular, RM-based geopolymer composites have been shown to substantially decrease ecological impacts relative to conventional cementitious materials while maintaining satisfactory mechanical performance [63]. For instance, one study reported that RM-based geopolymers generate 64–70% lower carbon emissions compared with OPC-based composites [64]. This review systematically examines the literature comparing embodied carbon, embodied energy, and material costs across various concrete types, including RAAs-incorporated concrete, RM-based cementitious concrete, and RM-based geopolymer concrete. The corresponding data are summarized in Table 3, with unit indicator values for each material type presented in Table 4. In these analyses, sodium hydroxide solution was prepared by dissolving solid NaOH in water following standard literature procedures. The calculations for RAAs-incorporated, RM-based geopolymer, and RM-based cementitious concrete exclude fiber effects, focusing solely on the matrix to enable consistent comparisons. Furthermore, the energy consumption associated with thermal curing per functional unit of concrete can be quantitatively estimated using heat transfer theory, as described in Equation (7) [65].
Energycuring = Ptcuring + mc(Tcuring − 25) Troom > 25 °C
where P represents the oven or furnace power (600 W), tcuring and Tcuring denote the curing duration and curing temperature, respectively, m is the mass of the concrete, and C is the material’s specific heat capacity (assumed to be 700 J/kg•°C). The energy consumption is then converted into embodied carbon emissions using an emission factor of 0.231 (kg CO2)/kWh [66], assuming a local industrial electricity cost of 0.95 CNY/kWh. The final calculated unit indicator values for each concrete type are presented in Figure 3.

4.1. Embodied Carbon and Carbon Emission Reduction Potential

Embodied carbon represents the total CO2 emissions generated across the entire life cycle of materials, encompassing raw material production, manufacturing, transportation, and construction. Figure 3a,b present the embodied carbon and embodied carbon per unit of compressive strength for RM-dominated concretes. Compared with conventional concrete, concretes incorporating RAAs and RM-based cementitious concretes show substantial reductions in overall embodied carbon, ranging from 9.2% to 78.4% and 11.4% to 72.5%, respectively, although this trend is less pronounced in mixtures with high OPC content [67,68]. For example, co-producing RAAs from RM combined with flue gas desulfurization gypsum can reduce carbon emissions by 36.2% relative to conventional concrete [62]. Additionally, the inclusion of 10%, 15%, and 20% RM in concrete can decrease CO2 emissions by 9.7%, 14.7%, and 19.5%, respectively [69]. RM-based geopolymer concrete, in particular, exhibits markedly lower CO2 emissions, ranging from 40.6 to 158.6 kg CO2/m3, primarily because it eliminates OPC, the main contributor to carbon emissions in conventional concrete. The binder in RM-based geopolymer systems is entirely derived from industrial solid wastes, highlighting their sustainability advantage. The type and dosage of alkali activators significantly affect CO2 emissions; RM-based geopolymers prepared with sodium hydroxide alone tend to have relatively higher emissions, whereas the use of composite activators reduces CO2-equivalent emissions per cubic meter [70]. Therefore, minimizing the dosage of alkali activators is critical for reducing the carbon footprint of geopolymer systems. When considering compressive strength, concretes containing RAAs or RM-based cementitious materials exhibit higher embodied carbon per MPa, reflecting their greater use of cement or alkali activators. In contrast, RM-based geopolymer concrete achieves significantly lower embodied carbon per MPa reductions of 5–7.6 kg CO2/m3/MPa compared with conventional concrete due to its combination of high compressive strength and low carbon emissions. These results underscore the potential of RM-based geopolymers as sustainable, green building materials.

4.2. Embodied Energy and Resource Efficiency

Embodied energy represents the total energy consumed throughout the life cycle of materials, including extraction, refining, processing, transportation, and manufacturing. Figure 3c,d present the embodied energy and embodied energy per unit of compressive strength for RM-dominated concretes. The trends observed for these indicators generally mirror those found in the embodied carbon analysis. Compared to OPC concrete, the embodied energy of concrete incorporating RAAs, RM-dominated cementitious concrete, and RM-based geopolymer concrete decreases by 3.5–77% (average 23.2%), 11.6–59% (average 28%), and 27.5–85% (average 51.8%), respectively. These results indicate that OPC remains the primary contributor to energy consumption, with curing temperature and duration being key factors. Incorporating RM into geopolymers has been shown to improve environmental performance, particularly by reducing energy consumption [63]. Replacing 25% of OPC with RM can reduce cumulative energy demand by 31% over the entire lifecycle [71]. However, RM-based geopolymer concrete does not always exhibit lower embodied energy than RAAs-incorporated or conventional OPC concrete. For example, partially replacing OPC with 10% RM in RM-dominated OPC concrete can substantially increase the embodied energy per unit of compressive strength, making it 70.1% higher than that of conventional OPC concrete [35]. This increase is primarily due to the higher OPC content in mixtures containing 10% RM relative to the control group.

4.3. Material Cost

Material cost refers to the economic inputs associated with raw material acquisition and final application. Figure 3e presents the material costs of various RM-dominated concretes. All RM-dominated concretes, with costs ranging from 407.2 to 826.6 CNY/m3, are lower than conventional OPC concrete (831.3 CNY/m3). This reduction is primarily attributed to the lower price of RM-based materials compared with OPC when used as partial or full substitutes [72]. In addition to cost savings, RM-based geopolymers can decrease the environmental impact of traditional cementitious systems without compromising mechanical performance, highlighting their potential as sustainable construction materials [63]. The use of RM as a precursor [73] or the incorporation of RAAs [14] has been shown to be an effective strategy for reducing material costs while enhancing compressive strength. Figure 3f illustrates the material costs per unit of compressive strength. Concrete incorporating RAAs demonstrates the lowest cost per MPa, at only 8.5 CNY/m3/MPa, which is 52% lower than that of OPC concrete [62]. This value is also 9.6–73.7% lower (42.2% on average) than that of RM-based cementitious concrete and 36.1–58.9% lower (48.9% on average) than RM-based geopolymer concrete, underscoring the economic advantage of RAAs in cost-effective and high-performance concrete production. It should be noted that the present cost analysis primarily considers direct material expenses. Long-term costs associated with durability, maintenance, and replacement are not included due to limited lifecycle cost data in the current literature.
Table 3. Embodied carbon, embodied energy, and costs of raw materials.
Table 3. Embodied carbon, embodied energy, and costs of raw materials.
Raw MaterialEmbodied Carbon
[(kg CO2)/kg]		Embodied Energy
(MJ/kg)		Material Cost
(CNY/kg) a
OPC0.912 [59]5.5 [59]0.73 [59]
RM0.015 [74]0 [61]0 [61]
Sulphoaluminate OPC0.4 [62]2.2 [75]0.286 [62]
Gypsum0.00816 [76]0.09 [76]0.23 [76]
Coal gangue0.032 [77]0.62 [77]0.015 [78]
FA0.004 [61]0.1 [61]0.32 [61]
Calcium carbide slag0 [79]0 [79]0.08 [79]
GGBS0.042 [59]0.2 [59]0.46 [59]
Limestone powder0.017 [59]0.35 [59]0.348 [59]
River sand0.005 [80]0.081 [80]0.093 [80]
Silica sand0.025 [80]0.17 [80]0.18 [80]
Sea sand0 [81]0 [81]0 [81]
Coarse aggregate0.005 [61]0.083 [61]0.38 [61]
Sodium silicate0.43 [82]4.6 [82]0.79 [83]
Sodium hydroxide0.86 [82]10.8 [84]2.16 [85]
Water0.001 [61]0.1 [61]0.0064 [61]
Superplasticizer1.88 [61]11.47 [61]9.16 [61]
a The exchange rate of USD-CNY and HKD-CNY were regarded as around 7.19 and 0.92.
Table 4. Mechanical properties and estimated embodied carbon, energy, and cost of RM-dominated RAAs concrete, cementitious concrete, and geopolymer-based concrete.
Table 4. Mechanical properties and estimated embodied carbon, energy, and cost of RM-dominated RAAs concrete, cementitious concrete, and geopolymer-based concrete.
TypeIDRef.Precursors/Binder
Content		Curing
Regime		Compressive
Strength
(MPa)		Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/m3)		Embodied
Energy
(MJ/m3)		Material
Costs
(CNY/m3)		Embodied
Carbon per
MPa
(kgCO2/m3/MPa)		Embodied
Energy per
MPa
(MJ/m3/MPa)		Material
Costs per
MPa
(CNY/m3/MPa)
OPC concrete(1)[86]100% OPCRT (28d)46.9398.82522.0831.38.553.817.7
RM-incorporated
RAAs concrete		(1)[68]90% OPC + 10% FART (28d)51.3397.82407.1556.47.846.910.8
(2)[68]70% OPC + 20% FART (28d)42.6316.11921.1519.57.445.112.2
(3)[68]80% OPCt + 20% FA60 °C (12 h) + RT (28d)49.8362.12243.4558.97.345.011.2
(4)[62]100% Sulphoaluminate OPCRT (28d)54.5285.01620.2465.65.229.78.5
(5)[67]100% OPCRT (28d)46.0389.22434.2766.18.552.916.7
(6)[67]100% OPCRT (28d)37.9313.61980.9721.98.352.319.0
(7)[87]97.5% GGBS + 3.5% OPCtRT (28d)70.8246.82316.8696.23.532.79.8
(8)[60]38% GGBS + 38% FA + 9.5% FGD + 9.5% RM + 5% OPCRT (28d)39.786.3579.0518.62.214.613.1
RM-incorporated
cementitious concrete		(1)[51]59.3% OPC + 35.6% FA + 5.1% RMRT (28d)53.1301.91899.6649.95.735.812.2
(2)[88]90% OPC + 10% RMRT (28d)33.7315.81949.6407.29.457.912.1
(3)[89]59.3% OPC + 40.7% RMRT (28d)53.5310.81919.4619.55.835.911.6
(4)[90]30% GGBS + 60% RM + 10% OPCtRT (28d)34.0109.81034.8701.33.230.420.6
(5)[91]70% OPC + 15% RM + 15% Coal gangueRT (28d)42.8265.41732.6712.26.240.516.6
(6)[35]90% OPC + 10% RMRT (28d)18.1258.91655.8584.514.391.532.3
(7)[92]80% OPC + 20% RMRT (28d)35.3330.22097.1749.69.459.421.2
(8)[93]53.6% OPC + 27.8% FA + 18.6% RMRT (28d)83.8353.22228.8788.44.226.69.4
RM-incorporated
geopolymer concrete		(1)[94]40% RM + 45% GGBFS + 15% Gypsum80 °C (24 h) + RT (28d)45.3157.6 1654.0826.63.539.718.3
(2)[60]38% GGBS + 38% FA + 9.5% FGD + 9.5% RM + 5% ClinkerRT (28d)46.640.6377.4785.10.98.116.8
(3)[37]30% RM + 50% FA + 20% GGBSRT (28d)56.4158.61827.3748.92.832.413.3
(4)[95]90% FA + 10% RMRT (28d)47.584.01015.6688.51.821.414.5
(5)[96]50% RM + 50% GGBS60 °C (12 h) + RT (7d)50.0124.21352.5792.62.527.015.8
(6)[97]60% GGBS + 25% FA + 15% RMRT (28d)36.9106.91171.0762.72.931.720.7
(7)[98]40% RM + 60% GGBSRT (28d)42.0100.41105.8817.72.426.319.5
RT: Room Temperature.
Buildings 16 00362 g003
Figure 3. Sustainability and cost evaluations of RM-incorporated RAAs concrete, RM-incorporated cementitious concrete, and RM-incorporated geopolymer-concrete from literature: (a) Embodied carbon, (b) embodied carbon per MPa, (c) embodied energy, (d) embodied energy per MPa, (e) material cost, and (f) material cost per MPa [14,25,35,51,54,67,68,86,87,88,89,90,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].
Figure 3. Sustainability and cost evaluations of RM-incorporated RAAs concrete, RM-incorporated cementitious concrete, and RM-incorporated geopolymer-concrete from literature: (a) Embodied carbon, (b) embodied carbon per MPa, (c) embodied energy, (d) embodied energy per MPa, (e) material cost, and (f) material cost per MPa [14,25,35,51,54,67,68,86,87,88,89,90,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].
Buildings 16 00362 g003

5. Conclusions

This review presents a comprehensive overview of the production processes, chemical composition, and potential applications of RM in construction materials, including RAAs, partial replacements for OPC, and geopolymers. In addition, environmental and economic assessments have been conducted on RM-based RAAs, cementitious concrete, and geopolymer concrete. Based on the synthesis of existing studies, the key conclusions are as follows:
  • Challenges in Direct Reuse of RM: The direct application of RM is limited by the presence of insoluble alkaline compounds, trace radioactive elements, and high Fe2O3 content. Furthermore, its chemical and mineralogical composition varies depending on the bauxite source and the specific alumina refining process. Globally, RM typically contains CaO, Al2O3, SiO2, and Fe2O3, with average contents of 9.89 wt%, 12.43 wt%, 19.11 wt%, and 33.57 wt%, respectively. These factors restrict its direct use in certain construction applications.
  • Enhancement of Material Properties through RM Incorporation: Incorporating approximately 30% RM into concrete significantly densifies the microstructure and improves interfacial bonding, reducing porosity and enhancing compressive strength. RM contributes reactive oxides and acts as a filler, resulting in mechanical performance comparable to that of conventional NAs. This approach not only improves concrete performance but also provides substantial environmental benefits by reducing the extraction of natural resources.
  • RM as a Supplementary Cementitious Material: RM demonstrates considerable potential as a partial replacement for OPC or as a supplementary cementitious material due to its amorphous aluminosilicate and calcium silicate phases. Desulfurized RM has been shown to accelerate hydration and improve strength in blended and supersulfated cement systems. Furthermore, carbonation curing promotes CO2 uptake, enhancing the environmental performance of RM-based cementitious materials.
  • Geopolymerization of RM: RM-based geopolymers exhibit high compressive strength and effectively immobilize heavy metals. The combined effects of reactive oxides and filler action in RM significantly enhance the reactivity, mechanical performance, and sustainability of geopolymer concrete, highlighting its potential as a viable alternative to conventional cement-based materials.
  • Environmental and Economic Benefits of RM-Dominated Concrete: Concretes incorporating RM as RAAs, cementitious replacements, or geopolymers demonstrate substantially lower embodied carbon, reduced embodied energy, and decreased material costs compared with conventional OPC concrete. These advantages underscore the potential of RM-based concretes to contribute to more sustainable and cost-effective construction practices.
While this review highlights the potential of RM in construction materials, several limitations should be acknowledged. Durability aspects such as long-term carbonation, chloride penetration, freeze–thaw resistance, and alkali–silica reaction potential are not extensively covered due to limited systematic studies. Future research should focus on: (1) long-term field performance of RM-based concretes, (2) lifecycle assessment including maintenance and end-of-life scenarios, and (3) development of pretreatment methods to reduce alkalinity and radioactivity.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52368046; 52578405), State Key Laboratory of Safety and Resilience of Civil Engineering in Mountain Area (Grant No. HJGZ2024205), and the Key Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province in China (Grant Nos. 20240N006, 20224BAB204074).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, X.; Jin, Q. Exploring the carbon neutrality pathway for china’s aluminium industry: An analysis from 1950 to 2060. Appl. Energy 2025, 393, 126090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Archambo, M.; Kawatra, S.K. Red mud: Fundamentals and new avenues for utilization. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 2021, 42, 427–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lei, Z.; Gao, M.; Sun, J.; Tong, L.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y. Designing low-carbon fly ash based geopolymer with red mud and blast furnace slag wastes: Performance, microstructure and mechanism. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 354, 120362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nie, Q.; Li, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, R.; Shang, W.; Wang, R. Enhancing properties of bayer red mud -class f fly ash geopolymer composites via ground granulated blast furnace slag and calcium carbide slag incorporation. Buildings 2025, 15, 4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, D.; Zhang, H.; Cheng, Y.; Yu, P.; Fu, T. Research status and carbon reduction analysis of red mud in the field of building materials. Particuology 2025, 104, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Guo, K.; Dong, H.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L.; Li, Z. Experimental study of alkali-activated cementitious materials using thermally activated red mud: Effect of the si/al ratio on fresh and mechanical properties. Buildings 2025, 15, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Qin, T.; Luo, H.; Han, R.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, L.; Liu, M.; Gui, Z.; Xing, J.; Chen, D.; He, B.-J. Red mud in combination with construction waste red bricks for the preparation of low-carbon binder materials: Design and material characterization. Buildings 2024, 14, 3982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Molineux, C.J.; Newport, D.J.; Ayati, B.; Wang, C.; Connop, S.P.; Green, J.E. Bauxite residue (red mud) as a pulverised fuel ash substitute in the manufacture of lightweight aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Narendra, S.; Vasugi, V. Development of red mud based sintered artificial aggregates with various industrial wastes. Mater. Res. Express 2024, 11, 66401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shi, Y.; Guo, W.; Jia, Y.; Xue, C.; Qiu, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, D. Preparation of non-sintered lightweight aggregate ceramsite based on red mud-carbide slag-fly ash: Strength and curing method optimization. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 372, 133788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, S.; Xiang, Z.; Yao, N.; Liu, G.; Hou, C.; Li, Z. Effects of superabsorbent polymer on mechanical properties of cemented paste backfill and its mechanism evolution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 445, 137911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, M.; Zhao, Q.; Mo, L.; Chen, B. Preparation of carbon-negative artificial lightweight aggregates by carbonating sintered red mud (srm): CO2 sequestration, microstructure and performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 469, 143207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, J.; Li, M.; Jin, H.; Cheng, L.; Xing, F. The role of different ratios of biochar in the artificial lightweight cold-bonded aggregates (alcbas) containing high volume of red mud (rm). Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 422, 135815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, J.; Wang, Z.; Luo, H.; Wang, H.; Chen, L.; Liu, M.; Tang, M.; He, B.-J. Preparation and properties of alkali-activated red mud-based artificial lightweight aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 449, 138304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, W.; Liu, P.; Mo, L. Alkali buffering-driven carbon sequestration and performance enhancement in artificial aggregates produced from steel slag and red mud under low concentration CO2. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 492, 142998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, Z.; Zhao, S.; Li, X.; Yang, S.; Zhang, K. Synergistic optimization of synthesis processes for geopolymer from solely red mud: Precursor activation, activator and water-to-binder ratio. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 118007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhao, X.; Jiang, J.; Ou, X.; Chen, M.; Wei, D.; Cai, X.; Song, W.; Yu, P. Interfacial study of steel slag-red mud-based geopolymer concrete with cement concrete substrates: Bond strength and crack evolution. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 113, 114083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, L.; Xu, X.; Wang, Q.; Park, J.; Han, Y.; Guo, L.; Chen, R. Microscopic mechanisms and durability evaluation under freeze-thaw conditions of heavy metal solidification in red mud-slag geopolymer. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 114768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abdel-Raheem, M.; Go, L.M.; Pin, M.A.; Marti, B.O. Uses of Red Mud as a Construction Material; AEI: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; pp. 388–399. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lima, M.S.; Thives, L.P.; Haritonovs, V.; Bajars, K. Red mud application in construction industry: Review of benefits and possibilities. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; p. 12033. [Google Scholar]
  21. Aygun, B.F.; Uysal, M. Revolutionary optimization: Synthetic fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortars with metazeolite and red mud for unmatched durability and sustainability. Mater. Today Sustain. 2025, 29, 101062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, Z.; Dong, H.; Wang, Y.; Men, J.; Wang, J.; Zhao, X.; Zou, S. Valorization of alkali–thermal activated red mud for high-performance geopolymer: Performance evaluation and environmental effects. Buildings 2025, 15, 2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sunkpho, J.; Thangavel, P.; Kumar, D.R.; Wipulanusat, W.; Doh, J.-H. Sustainable use of red mud in concrete: Assessing mechanical strength, durability, and performance through machine learning models. Green Technol. Sustain. 2025, 4, 100283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kelessidis, V.C.; Tsamantaki, C.; Dalamarinis, P. Effect of pH and electrolyte on the rheology of aqueous wyoming bentonite dispersions. Appl. Clay Sci. 2007, 38, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Y.; Lin, C.; Wu, Y. Characterization of red mud derived from a combined bayer process and bauxite calcination method. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 146, 255–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Song, Y.; Li, Y.; Lu, J.; Hua, L.; Gu, Y.; Yang, Y. Strengthening and toughening mechanisms of martensite-bainite microstructure in 2 gpa ultra-high strength steel during hot stamping. Sci. China-Technol. Sci. 2025, 68, 1520201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cui, W.; Cui, Q.; Dong, X.; Liu, J.; Song, K.; Xie, M.; Yao, X. Current research status and emerging trends in utilization of red mud resources: A study based on bibliometric network analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 442, 137605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, P.; Wei, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Xue, Y.; Liu, X. Impact of hematite in red mud on hydration characteristics and environmental performance of cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2025, 160, 106035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sandu, T.; Sarbu, A.; Zavoianu, R.; Spatarelu, C.P.; Florea, M.; Bradu, C.; Mara, E.L.; Dragut, D.V.; Alexandrescu, E.; Zaharia, A.; et al. New ways to use the red mud waste as raw material for inorganic- organic hybrid hydrogels. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2017, 169, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Feng, Y.; Yang, C. Analysis on physical and mechanical properties of red mud materials and stockpile stability after dilatation. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 8784232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. He, A.P.; Hu, Z.L.; Cao, D.G.; Zeng, J.M.; Wu, B.L.; Wang, L.J. Comprehensive utilization of red mud remaining in alumina production. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 881–883, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gong, C.; Yang, N. Effect of phosphate on the hydration of alkali-activated red mud–slag cementitious material. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1013–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Ren, Y. Binary reaction behaviors of red mud based cementitious material: Hydration characteristics and na+ utilization. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 410, 124592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, W.; Yang, J.; Xiao, B. Review on treatment and utilization of bauxite residues in china. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2009, 93, 220–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Y.; Zhuge, Y.; Chen, X.; Duan, W.; Fan, R.; Outhred, L.; Wang, L. Micro-chemomechanical properties of red mud binder and its effect on concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2023, 258, 110688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Manfroi, E.P.; Cheriaf, M.; Rocha, J.C. Microstructure, mineralogy and environmental evaluation of cementitious composites produced with red mud waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 67, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Singh, S.; Amalkar, M.; Dutta, M.C.; Rendi, D.E. Mechanically activated red mud based geopolymer for advanced concrete applications: Synthesis and properties. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2025, 49, 5967–5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zinoveev, D.V.; Diubanov, V.G.; Shutova, A.V.; Ziniaeva, M.V. Recycling of red muds with the extraction of metals and special additions to cement. Russ. Metall. (Metally) 2015, 2015, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Weng, X.; Haynes, R.J.; Zhou, Y.F. Manufactured soil: A new use for bauxite residue. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 955, 177105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alelweet, O.; Pavia, S.; Lei, Z. Pozzolanic and cementing activity of raw and pyro-processed saudi arabian red mud (rm) waste. Recent Prog. Mater. 2021, 3, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hairi, S.N.M.; Jameson, G.N.L.; Rogers, J.J.; Mackenzie, K.J.D. Synthesis and properties of inorganic polymers (geopolymers) derived from bayer process residue (red mud) and bauxite. J. Mater. Sci. 2015, 50, 7713–7724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Thang, N.H.; Nhung, L.T.; Quyen, P.V.T.H.; Phong, D.T.; Khe, D.T.; Van Phuc, N. Development of heat resistant geopolymer-based materials from red mud and rice husk ash. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2018; p. 40005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gordon, J.N.; Pinnock, W.R.; Moore, M.M. A preliminary investigation of strength development in jamaican red mud composites. Cem. Concr. Compos. 1996, 18, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Atasoy, A. An investigation on characterization and thermal analysis of the aughinish red mud. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2005, 81, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Abdulvaliyev, R.A.; Tastanov, E.A.; Gladyshev, S.V.; Beisembekova, K.O.; Akhmadiyeva, N.K. Wasteless processing of red mud by hydrogarnet technology. In Proceedings of the Bauxite Residue Valorisation and Best Practices Conference, Leuven, Belgium, 5–7 October 2015; pp. 171–177. [Google Scholar]
  46. Damayanti, R.; Khareunissa, H. Composition and characteristics of red mud: A case study on tayan bauxite residue from alumina processing plant at west kalimantan. Indones. Min. J. 2016, 19, 179–190. [Google Scholar]
  47. Snars, K.; Gilkes, R.J. Evaluation of bauxite residues (red muds) of different origins for environmental applications. Appl. Clay Sci. 2009, 46, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Davris, P.; Balomenos, E.; Panias, D.; Paspaliaris, I. Selective leaching of rare earth elements from bauxite residue (red mud), using a functionalized hydrophobic ionic liquid. Hydrometallurgy 2016, 164, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Colangelo, F.; Messina, F.; Di Palma, L.; Cioffi, R. Recycling of non-metallic automotive shredder residues and coal fly-ash in cold-bonded aggregates for sustainable concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 116, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qian, L.-P.; Ahmad, M.R.; Lao, J.-C.; Dai, J.-G. Recycling of red mud and flue gas residues in geopolymer aggregates (GPA) for sustainable concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 191, 106893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tang, W.C.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Cui, H.Z. Influence of red mud on fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 178, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luo, Z.; Ge, M.; Liu, L.; Liu, X.; Zhang, W.; Ye, J.; Gao, M.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Liu, X. Desulfurization-modified red mud for supersulfated cement production: Insights into hydration kinetics, microstructure, and mechanical properties. Compos. Part B Eng. 2025, 297, 112340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shafique, M.T.; Siddique, S.; Khalid, H.R.; Adekunle, S.K.; Hanif, A.; Ahmad, S.; Al-Dulaijan, S. Investigating the impact of red mud substitution on physicochemical properties of carbonated cement composites. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 113, 114087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, S.; Zou, F.; Luo, H. An all solid waste CO2 sequestration material consist of multiple calcium silicate clinkers by carbide slag, copper tailing and red mud: Clinker crystal transformation and carbonation hardening properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 450, 138534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, P.; Yin, S.; Zheng, S.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Li, X. Study on dynamic characteristics of cement-modified red mud-based silty soil under traffic load. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2025, 198, 109650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Q.; Xia, Y.; Hou, D.; Li, L. Effects of nano-Al2O3, nano-MgO and nano-Fe2O3 on the properties of cement-based 3D printing: A comparative study. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 111, 113322. [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu, Z.; Xia, Y.; Li, H.; Shi, Y.; Wu, J.; Yan, J.; Wang, L. Synergistic utilization of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash and red mud as low-carbon alkali-activators in one-part geopolymer. Chem. Eng. J. 2025, 522, 168140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ke, Y.; Liang, S.; Duan, H.; Quan, J.; Li, X.; Hou, H.; Hu, J.; Yang, Y.; Liu, X.; Zuo, Y.; et al. Insights into solidification mechanism of cr(iii) and cr(vi) in chromite ore processing residue via composite geopolymers synthesized from calcined red mud and granulated blast furnace slag. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 496, 139185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Lao, J.-C.; Ma, R.-Y.; Xu, L.-Y.; Li, Y.; Shen, Y.-N.; Yao, J.; Wang, Y.-S.; Xie, T.-Y.; Huang, B.-T. Fly ash-dominated high-strength engineered/strain-hardening geopolymer composites (hs-egc/shgc): Influence of alkalinity and environmental assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 447, 141182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, Z.; Gao, X.; Lu, D.; Dong, J. Early hydration properties and reaction kinetics of multi-composite cement pastes with supplementary cementitious materials (scms). Thermochim. Acta 2022, 709, 179157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xu, L.-Y.; Lao, J.-C.; Qian, L.-P.; Shi, D.-D.; Lan, J.; Xie, T.-Y.; Hou, D.; Huang, B.-T. Upcycling red mud into high-strength high-ductility engineered geopolymer composites (egc): Toward superior performance and sustainability. Compos. Part B Eng. 2025, 305, 112713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, Z.; Lu, D.; Gao, X. Multi-objective optimization of gap-graded cement paste blended with supplementary cementitious materials using response surface methodology. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 248, 118552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Occhicone, A.; Vukčević, M.; Bosković, I.; Mingione, S.; Ferone, C. Alkali-activated red mud and construction and demolition waste-based components: Characterization and environmental assessment. Materials 2022, 15, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Li, Z.; Gao, M.; Lei, Z.; Tong, L.; Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Jiang, X. Ternary cementless composite based on red mud, ultra-fine fly ash, and GGBS: Synergistic utilization and geopolymerization mechanism. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shobeiri, V.; Bennett, B.; Xie, T.; Visintin, P. A comprehensive assessment of the global warming potential of geopolymer concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fang, Y.; Ahmad, M.R.; Lao, J.-C.; Qian, L.-P.; Dai, J.-G. Development of artificial geopolymer aggregates with thermal energy storage capacity. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 135, 104834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kusumanjali, G.; Tejas, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Pasla, D. Utilization of bauxite residue as fine aggregate for the development of structural concrete: An approach towards sustainable construction materials. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 22, e04348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shi, Y.; Liao, Q.; Li, J.; Zhao, Q. Preparation of red mud-calcium carbide slag-based low-carbon lightweight aggregate concrete: Mechanical performance and interfacial transition zone microstructural analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 468, 140311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ghalehnovi, M.; Roshan, N.; Taghizadeh, A.; Asadi, S.E.; Ali, H.S.; de Brito, J. Production of environmentally friendly concrete incorporating bauxite residue and silica fume. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 4021423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ma, C.; Zhao, B.; Guo, S.; Long, G.; Xie, Y. Properties and characterization of green one-part geopolymer activated by composite activators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nikbin, I.M.; Aliaghazadeh, M.; Charkhtab, S.; Fathollahpour, A. Environmental impacts and mechanical properties of lightweight concrete containing bauxite residue (red mud). J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2683–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, C.; Zhang, X.; Wu, C.; Yang, S.; Yu, T.; Wang, W.; Hu, Z. Development of high performance and low-carbon red mud based lightweight concrete: A novel strategy for transforming red mud into sustainable concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 491, 142714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, Z.; Dong, H.; Zhao, X.; Wang, K.; Gao, X. Utilisation of bayer red mud for high-performance geopolymer: Competitive roles of different activators. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 23, e05047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shi, J.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Lei, J.; Yin, K.; Zhang, Z.; Xie, N. Upcycling use of red mud-based solid waste in engineered cementitious composites: Properties, activation mechanism, and life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 447, 141504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhu, H.; Zhang, D.; Wang, T.; McBain, M.; Li, V.C. Intrinsic self-stressing and low carbon engineered cementitious composites (ecc) for improved sustainability. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021, 149, 106580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhou, J.; Meng, S.; Zha, L. Development and mechanistic study of sustainable grouting materials for highway mined-out areas using waste glass powder, blast furnace slag, and carbide slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 486, 141978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Qing, S.; Li, C. Mechanical properties and microstructure of low carbon high-strength engineered cementitious composites with supplementary cementitious material. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 22, e04164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gao, S.; Zhao, S.; Yang, L.; Wang, Y.; Guan, X.; Zhang, H.; Luo, S. Synergistic effects of fly ash-cement slurry and CO2 mineralization on coal gangue aggregate and its concrete properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 465, 140225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gao, X.; Yao, X.; Yang, T.; Zhou, S.; Wei, H.; Zhang, Z. Calcium carbide residue as auxiliary activator for one-part sodium carbonate-activated slag cements: Compressive strength, phase assemblage and environmental benefits. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 308, 125015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lyu, B.-C.; Guo, L.-P.; Fei, X.-P.; Wu, J.-D.; Bian, R.-S. Preparation and properties of green high ductility geopolymer composites incorporating recycled fine brick aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 139, 105054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lao, J.-C.; Huang, B.-T.; Xu, L.-Y.; Khan, M.; Fang, Y.; Dai, J.-G. Seawater sea-sand engineered geopolymer composites (egc) with high strength and high ductility. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 138, 104998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhong, H.; Zhang, M. Effect of recycled tyre polymer fibre on engineering properties of sustainable strain hardening geopolymer composites. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2021, 122, 104167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Xu, L.-Y.; Huang, B.-T.; Lan-Ping, Q.; Dai, J.-G. Enhancing long-term tensile performance of engineered cementitious composites (ecc) using sustainable artificial geopolymer aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 133, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. He, S.; Ding, L.; Xiong, Z.; Spicer, R.A.; Farnsworth, A.; Valdes, P.J.; Wang, C.; Cai, F.; Wang, H.; Sun, Y.; et al. A distinctive Eocene Asian monsoon and modern biodiversity resulted from the rise of eastern Tibet. Sci. Bull. 2022, 67, 2245–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. McLellan, B.C.; Williams, R.P.; Lay, J.; van Riessen, A.; Corder, G.D. Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1080–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ahmed, W.; Ye, C.; Lu, G.; Ng, S.T.; Liu, G.; Wang, Y. Low-carbon concrete comprising high-volume pozzolan and recycled aggregate: Evaluating mechanical performance, microstructure, environmental impact, and cost efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 518, 145796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Krivenko, P.; Kovalchuk, O.; Pasko, A.; Croymans, T.; Hult, M.; Lutter, G.; Vandevenne, N.; Schreurs, S.; Schroeyers, W. Development of alkali activated cements and concrete mixture design with high volumes of red mud. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 151, 819–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shirodkar, V.; Patel, R.; Verma, M.; Mahate, V. An investigation into the durability of concrete using red mud as a substitute in cement. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tang, W.C.; Wang, Z.; Donne, S.W.; Forghani, M.; Liu, Y. Influence of red mud on mechanical and durability performance of self-compacting concrete. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 379, 120802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Krivenko, P.V.; Kovalchuk, O.; Zozulynets, V. 9—Alternative binders—High volume bauxite red mud alkali activated cements and concretes. In Recycled Concrete; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2023; pp. 283–308. [Google Scholar]
  91. Yuan, Q.; Wang, L.; Kong, D.; Han, Y.; Ren, C.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, G. Synergistic action and effect mechanism of coal gangue powder and red mud on the properties of concretes. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 110999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Viyasun, K.; Anuradha, R.; Thangapandi, K.; Kumar, D.S.; Sivakrishna, A.; Gobinath, R. Investigation on performance of red mud based concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 39, 796–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, R.-X.; Poon, C.-S. Utilization of red mud derived from bauxite in self-compacting concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 384–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Raza, A.; Selmi, A.; Elhadi, K.M.; Ghazouani, N.; Chen, W. Strength analysis and microstructural characterization of calcined red mud based-geopolymer concrete modified with slag and phosphogypsum. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2024, 33, 6168–6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bellum, R.R.; Venkatesh, C.; Madduru, S.R.C. Influence of red mud on performance enhancement of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Han, J.; Li, X. Creep and mechanical behavior after sustained loading of red mud-slag based geopolymer concrete at early-age. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2025, 23, e04980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kazemian, F.; Hassani, A. Exploring mechanical and fracture properties in geopolymer concrete with ternary precursor waste materials through laboratory investigations and statistical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 95, 110294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. John, E.; Chalapuram, K.M.; Shebin, P.; Mohan, H.K.; Frazana, Z. Geopolymer concrete using red mud and ggbs. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3, 5. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 16 00362 g001
Figure 1. Statistics on alumina production in major alumina-producing countries worldwide in 2023 and 2024.
Figure 1. Statistics on alumina production in major alumina-producing countries worldwide in 2023 and 2024.
Buildings 16 00362 g001
Buildings 16 00362 g002
Figure 2. Annual production and utilization of RM in China from 2014 to 2024.
Figure 2. Annual production and utilization of RM in China from 2014 to 2024.
Buildings 16 00362 g002
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z. Toward Low-Carbon Construction: A Review of Red Mud Utilization in Cementitious Materials and Geopolymers for Sustainability and Cost Benefits. Buildings 2026, 16, 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020362

AMA Style

Li Z. Toward Low-Carbon Construction: A Review of Red Mud Utilization in Cementitious Materials and Geopolymers for Sustainability and Cost Benefits. Buildings. 2026; 16(2):362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020362

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhiping. 2026. "Toward Low-Carbon Construction: A Review of Red Mud Utilization in Cementitious Materials and Geopolymers for Sustainability and Cost Benefits" Buildings 16, no. 2: 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020362

APA Style

Li, Z. (2026). Toward Low-Carbon Construction: A Review of Red Mud Utilization in Cementitious Materials and Geopolymers for Sustainability and Cost Benefits. Buildings, 16(2), 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020362

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