See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322195850

Recycling of seashell waste in concrete: A review

Article  in  Construction and Building Materials · February 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.009

CITATIONS READS

14 9,667

6 authors, including:

Kim Hung Mo Zamin Jumaat

University of Malaya University of Malaya
65 PUBLICATIONS   966 CITATIONS    318 PUBLICATIONS   5,406 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wan Inn Goh Choon Wah Yuen

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia University of Malaya
38 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural size testing of Malaysian timbers View project

Study on Motorcyclist Riding Behaviour View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Hung Mo on 30 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Recycling of seashell waste in concrete: A review

Kim Hung Mo a,⇑, U. Johnson Alengaram a, Mohd Zamin Jumaat a, Siew Cheng Lee a,
Wan Inn Goh b, Choon Wah Yuen a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Johor, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s

 Seashell waste such as oyster, mussel, scallop and cockle shells usage in concrete.
 The characteristics of seashell waste in aggregate and powder forms are summarized.
 Effects on the fresh and hardened properties of concrete are discussed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to reduce the dependency on virgin materials for construction, efforts have been made to incor-
Received 29 May 2017 porate by-products and wastes from different industries as alternatives in concrete. Originating from the
Received in revised form 29 November 2017 fishery industry, seashell waste, such as oyster shells, mussel shells, and scallop shells, among others, is
Accepted 1 December 2017
available in huge quantities in certain regions, and is usually dumped or landfilled without any re-use
value. This paper summarizes previous research concerning the use of seashell waste as a partial replace-
ment for conventional materials in concrete and other related cement-based products. The characteristics
Keywords:
of different types of seashell waste, as well as the effects of incorporating the seashells on the fresh and
Seashell
Waste recycling
hardened properties of concrete, are discussed. The material characteristics suggest that, similar to lime-
Sustainable concrete stone, seashell waste could be an inert material due to the high calcium oxide content. However, proper
treatment such as heating at high temperature and crushing to achieve appropriate fineness are desirable
for a better quality material. It is shown in past research that while seashell waste has been used as a
replacement for both cement and aggregate, there is still a lack of investigation concerning its durability,
as well as the actual influence of seashell powder as a cement replacement material. Despite the reduc-
tion in the workability and strength, based on the review, it is suggested that seashell waste could still be
utilized as a partial aggregate at a replacement level of up to 20% for adequate workability and strength of
concrete for non-structural purposes.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752
2. Characterization of seashell waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.1. Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.2. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.3. Microstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.4. Impurities content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
2.5. Physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
2.5.1. Seashell aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
2.5.2. Seashell powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
3. Treatment of seashell waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khmo@um.edu.my (K.H. Mo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.009
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
752 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764

4. Influence on fresh properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757

4.1. Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
4.2. Setting time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
4.3. Air content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 757
5. Effect on density and mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
5.1. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
5.2. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758
5.3. Tensile strength and elastic modulus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
6. Effect on shrinkage and durability properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
6.1. Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
6.2. Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760
6.3. Transport properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
6.4. Chemical attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
6.5. Freeze-thaw resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
7. Effect on insulation properties and structural performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 761
8. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 762
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763

1. Introduction
The current trend in concrete engineering is shifting towards
the sustainability aspect due to the depletion of natural concrete-
making materials as well as the environmental impact arising from
the utilization of these materials. Hence, there is a steady increase
in realizing the sustainability of concrete production through the
use of recycled waste materials as substitutes for conventional
materials in concrete. For this purpose, a number of studies have
been carried out to utilize wastes originating from different
sources, such as construction and demolition waste [1,2], and from
a variety of industries including steel [3], agricultural [4–6], glass
[7], and rubber [8], among others. These wastes are available in
huge volume in certain countries, and, hence, have the potential
to be re-used in large-scale concrete production. The utilization
of waste materials in concrete could moderate the problem of
excessive consumption of conventional materials as well as reduce
the amount of waste generated.
Another potential waste material that is available in abundance
is waste seashells. There are many different types of waste seashell
available, such as oyster shells, mussel shells, scallop shells, peri-
winkle shells and cockle shells. In China, which is the largest pro-
ducer of shellfish in the world, about 10 million tonnes of waste
seashells are disposed of in landfills annually. This amount of sea-
Fig. 1. Dumped seashells with remaining flesh [12].
shell waste primarily consists of oyster, clam, scallop, and mussel
shells [9], most of which are landfilled with only a small fraction
re-used for other purposes, such as fertilizers and handicrafts.
The re-use is limited due to the restriction on the amount that
can be used, the problem of soil solidification, and economic prob-
lems [10]. In addition, there are problems with illegal dumping of
these waste seashells into public waters and reclaimed land. These
waste seashells, if left untreated for a long period of time, can cause
foul odours due to the decay of the remaining flesh in the shells
(Fig. 1) or the microbial decomposition of salts into gases, such
as H2S, NH3 and amines [11]. These problems can negatively affect
the quality of living for people in close proximity and result in
environmental pollution issues.
Oyster shell waste is a common problem in many countries,
including China, South Korea, and Taiwan. For every 1 kg of oyster
shells, about 370–700 g of waste shells are produced [9]. Of the
total amount of seashell waste in China, it is approximated that
300,000 tonnes of oyster shells are available annually [13], while,
in Taiwan, an excess of 160,000 tonnes of oyster shell waste is gen-
erated every year [14]. In South Korea, in 1993, it was reported that
about 320,000 tonnes of oyster shells were produced, of which
only 30% were re-used [11].
The region of Galicia, located in the north of Spain, is the world’s
second-largest producer of mussels after China. Annually, about
25,000 tonnes of mussel shell waste is produced in this region with
over 1 million tonnes available worldwide [15]. Similar environ-
mental problems exist due to the dumping of mussel shells as
the microbial decomposition of the waste could create health
issues [16]. In Peru, a significant quantity of scallop shell waste is
produced yearly amounting to some 25,000 tonnes, which results
in environmental pollution due to the unpleasant odours when
dumped in open areas [17]. In Nigeria, periwinkle shell waste is
discarded after consumption of the periwinkle a source of food
for the locals. The aforementioned wastes result in huge deposits
of this waste as only a small portion is re-used by the locals as
aggregate in concrete [18].
Previously, these wastes were researched for different purposes,
such as heavy metal removal [19–23] and incorporation into poly-
mer composites [24,25]. With a view to exploring the potential uti-
lization of these wastes in concrete, substantial research work has
been conducted in terms of re-using the discarded seashells as a
replacement for conventional materials, such as cement, sand,
and coarse aggregate. Hence, the following section summarizes
and reviews the previous findings on the use of recycled seashells
in concrete.
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764 753

2. Characterization of seashell waste Table 1

CaO composition and LOI of seashells from the literature.

2.1. Composition Literature CaO (%) LOI (%)

Oyster shells
The seashells used in previous studies, which include oyster Yoon et al. [26] 52.9 44.0
shells [10,26], scallop shells [17,27], mussel shells [15,16], cockle Yang et al. [10] 51.1 44.2
Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] 53.6 42.8
shells, and clam shells [28], were found to be primarily composed
Zhong et al. [30] 54.3 43.0
of naturally formed calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and the mineral Kuo et al. [31] 77.8 –
phase was found to be calcite. The main chemical composition of Li et al. [13] 86.8 –
seashells is similar to limestone, primarily consisting of calcium Djobo et al. [29] 74.7 23.2
Ez-zaki et al. [32] 48.0 51.0
oxide (CaO), with tiny fractions of other oxides. In oyster shells,
the CaO composition was found to vary between 48.0% and 86.8% Mussel shells
Felipe-Sese et al. [16] 87.2 –
with a high loss on ignition (LOI) ranging between 23.2% and
Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] 53.4 42.2
51.0%. This is in line with the presence of calcite, which can be Yao et al. [9] 53.7 45.6
found from the XRD pattern of the material [29] (Fig. 2). The LOI
Cockle shells
is due to the partial decomposition of calcite to form CaO and car- Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] 54.2 42.9
bon dioxide. The CaO content and LOI for oyster shells used in dif- Olivia et al. [33] 51.6 41.8
ferent studies are summarized in Table 1. The difference in the CaO Olivia et al. [34] 51.9 –
content found by researchers could be due to the temperature the Clam shells
oyster shells are heated to prior to the chemical composition test. Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] 54.0 42.7
For instance, in the investigation by Li et al. [13], and Djobo et al. Olivia et al. [34] 67.7 –

[29], the oyster shells were heated (calcined) to temperatures of
850–950 °C and 500 °C, respectively. This resulted in higher CaO
content compared to other research in which the oyster shells
were heated to around 105 °C [10,26,30]. This is similarly observed
in the case of mussel shells whereby a high CaO content of 87.2%
was obtained after calcining at a temperature of 1100 °C compared
to the CaO content of about 53.0% observed by others [9,28]. In
general, all types of seashell, including clam and cockle shells,
can be said to have a similar chemical composition, provided sim-
ilar calcining temperatures are adopted for the materials.
2.2. Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)
Felipe-Sese et al. [16] reported that when mussel shell samples
were subjected to TGA testing at ambient temperatures of up to
200 °C, the weight loss was about 0.4% due to the release of phys-
ically absorbed water; at temperatures between 200 °C and 356 °C,
the weight loss was about 1.7%, which was caused by oxidation
and removal of volatile matter in the samples. A further increase
in temperature of between 356 °C and 600 °C resulted in a weight
loss of 2.3%; however, beyond 600–850 °C, the weight loss
increased drastically to about 43.3%, which was attributed to the
decomposition of the mussel shells. This is corroborated by the
observation of Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] in which the weight loss
of mussel shells was found to be more than 40% for a temperature
Seashells (Not specified)
Garcia et al. [35] 51.4 43.4
Safi et al. [36] 54.5 44.0
range of 670–800 °C (Fig. 3). Similarly, Chiou et al. [14] found that
at temperatures exceeding 760 °C, oyster shells were almost com-
pletely decomposed, while Mohamed et al. [37] reported a signifi-
cant reduction in the weight of cockle shells when the temperature
was increased from 700 °C to 900 °C due to the decomposition of
carbonate. Safi et al. [36] observed a similar trend in the weight
loss corresponding to an increase in temperature for seashells
and conventional limestone. From the DTA test, Safi et al. [36] also
verified that the endothermic peak at 842.5 °C was associated with
the decarbonation of the seashell samples; a similar peak was also
found for limestone. The TGA studies implied that, generally, cal-
cining of seashell waste at temperatures exceeding 600 °C could
result in seashell waste powder having a higher CaO content.
2.3. Microstructure
The microstructure of oyster shells has been reported in detail
by Martinez-Garcia et al. [15]. According to their research, similar
to all kinds of bivalve shells, the structure of mussel shells can be
divided into three parts, namely, the outer layer known as perios-
tracum, the middle layer, which is the prismatic layer and the inner
layer known as nacre [9,15] (Fig. 4). A similar prismatic layer rich
in CaCO3 was also observed in the SEM figures for oyster shells
and cockle shells (Fig. 4) provided by Yoon et al. [11], and Khan-
khaje et al. [38], respectively. Ballester et al. [39] observed pris-
matic particles in mussel shell aggregate as compared to the
rounded particles of conventional limestone aggregate.
Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] also observed that in ground seashell
(clam, mussel, oyster and cockle shells) powder, the morphology
showed irregularly shaped particles, multi-angle shapes, and some
slender particles. The average particle size was reported to be 20.8,
29.9, 13.9 and 13.6 lm for clam, mussel, oyster, and cockle shells,
respectively (Fig. 5). Needle-form like particles were also observed
in the SEM figure for ground oyster shells by Ez-zaki et al. [32].

2.4. Impurities content

2θ In general, the content of impurities in seashells is considered to

be pertinent considering that it is a form of waste material.
Fig. 2. XRD pattern of oyster shells [29]. Generally, researchers have agreed that the chloride ion and
754 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
Fig. 3. TGA curve of mussel shells [15].
organic matter content in seashell waste are high and exceed the
maximum limit for aggregates. For instance, Nguyen et al. [40]
reported that the chloride ion and organic matter content for sea-
shells (crepidula and scallop shells) were high at around 0.055–
0.096% and 1.01–1.87%, respectively, which exceeded the limit
for aggregate according to the European standard. In the case of
mussel shells, Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] reported that the chloride
ion and organic matter contents were in the range of 0.28–0.51%
and 0.27–2.15%, respectively, and it was verified that the chloride
ion content exceeded the limit for aggregate stipulated in the
Spanish regulations. In contrast, Varhen et al. [17] found that the
chloride ion and organic matter contents in scallop shells were
0.014% and 1.03%, respectively, and that the chloride ion content
was below the limit of 0.06% specified in ACI 222R. Yoon et al.
[11] found that oyster shells have a salinity content of 0.35%, which
is similar to other types of seashell waste, and, therefore, recom-
mended that oyster shells should only be substituted up to 10–
20% of aggregate in concrete to prevent salt damage. A similar sug-
gestion was also given by Yang et al. [41]. In addition, Yang et al.
[10] opined that the small amount of impurities in oyster shells
was not considered harmful when the oyster shells were incorpo-
rated into concrete, and Wang et al. [42] considered the material to
be non-toxic. Chiou et al. [14] observed that for uncalcined oyster
shells, the detected chloride ion content was 3.70% whereas calcin-
ing at 650 °C could reduce the chloride ion content to less than
1.34%, depending on the duration of calcining.
In terms of the leaching of heavy metals, it was found that the
leaching concentrations of heavy metals in oyster shells were far
below the regulated limits, and, therefore, could be considered as
a safe material [14]. Based on the leaching test results, Martinez-
Garcia et al. [15] concluded that uncrushed mussel shell could be
classified as inert waste, and that, based on the test results for
leaching, crushed mussel shells are classified as non-hazardous
waste according to the EU regulations.
2.5. Physical properties
2.5.1. Seashell aggregate
Seashell waste has been used as coarse and fine aggregate to
replace conventional aggregate in concrete. In general, crushed
seashell waste has been used as fine aggregate with sizes of less
than 5 mm (Table 2). Crushed seashell fine aggregate usually has
a more flaky and elongated particle shape compared to normal
sand [41], and Cuadrado-Rica et al. [27] reported a flakiness index
of 96.9% for crushed scallop shell aggregate. For the case of oyster
shell fine aggregate sieved below 5 mm, the particles were found
to have similar fineness compared to normal sand, which is
reflected by the fineness modulus of between 2.0 and 2.75 found
in these studies [10,31,41]. In the studies by Martinez-Garcia
et al. [15], and Varhen et al. [17], when a minimum sieve size of
about 1 mm was used, the fines content of the crushed seashell
fine aggregate was reduced, and, hence, the fineness modulus
was found to be closer to 4.0, which was coarser than normal sand.
On the other hand, when seashell waste, such as periwinkle
shells [18], and mussel shells [15] were used as coarse aggregate
in plain concrete, these shells were usually in the uncrushed form
with a maximum size of between 16 and 25 mm. Smaller sizes of
crushed seashells have been used as coarse aggregate when incor-
porated in pervious concrete, with a maximum size of between 4
and 9.5 mm [38,40].
As shown in Table 2, the specific gravity of seashell aggregate
(mussel, oyster, scallop and cockle shells) was found to be in the
range of 2.09–2.73, which is similar to normal aggregates. Since
seashell waste primarily comprises CaCO3, the specific gravity is
expected to be close to that for calcium carbonate. Nguyen et al.
[43] also found a similar specific gravity for crepidula shell aggre-
gate. A slightly higher specific gravity of 2.81 was observed by Safi
et al. [36] for an unspecified type of seashell aggregate. Yoon et al.
[11] revealed that, as the degree of crushing increases and the size
of oyster shell decreases, the specific gravity increases from 2.35 to
2.47, which is approaching that of calcium carbonate. This was cor-
roborated by Yoon et al. [26] who found that the specific gravity of
crushed oyster shells with a particle size of between 0.074 and 2
mm was 2.41, which was higher than the specific gravity of 2.38
for crushed oyster shells, with a particle size ranging between 2
and 4.75 mm.
In terms of the absorption capacity of seashell waste, the
observed range was found to be between 1.80 and 7.70%, as shown
in Table 2. For other studies not listed in Table 2, Nguyen et al. [43]
found that the water absorption of crepidula shell aggregate was
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764 755

Fig. 4. Prismatic layer of (a) mussel shell [15] (b) oyster shell [11] and (c) cockle shell [38].

Fig. 5. Morphology of ground seashell observed by Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] at different magnifications.
756 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764

Table 2
Physical properties of seashell waste as aggregate.

Literature Size (mm) Fineness modulus Specific gravity Absorption (%) Loose bulk density (kg/m3) Compacted bulk density (kg/m3)
Oyster shells
Yoon et al. [11] – – 2.35–2.47 – 1152 –
Yoon et al. [26] 0.074–2 – 2.42 – – –
2–4.75 – 2.38 – – –
Yang et al. [10] <5 2.70 2.39 4.40 – –
Yang et al. [41] <5 2.80 2.48 2.90 – –
Kuo et al. [31] <4.75 2.00 2.10 7.70 – –
Wang et al. [42] – 2.75 2.10 7.66 – 1051
Islam et al. [46] <2 2.27 2.29 – – –
Scallop shells
Cudrado-Rica et al. [27] <5 4.40 2.64 3.65 – –
Varhen et al. [17] 1.19–4.75 4.57 2.57 1.88 1015 1224
Nguyen et al. [40] 2–4 – 2.50 2.90 1070 1250
Mussel shells
Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] 0–1 1.90 2.73 4.12 – –
1–4 4.64 2.65 2.56 – –
4–16 5.38 2.62 2.17 – –
Cockle shells
Khankhaje et al. [38] 4.75–6.3 – 2.64 2.50 – 1420
6.3–9.5 – 2.09 1.80 – 1408

within the expected range at 2.25% whereas Safi et al. [36] noted
that the absorption of unspecified seashell aggregate was 0.80%.
The water absorption was reported to be due to the irregular sur-
face and high amount of internal pores of seashell aggregate [42].
Researchers have also reported bulk densities of between 1015
and 1420 kg/m3 for seashells (oyster, scallop, and cockle shells)
used as aggregate (Table 2). Additionally, the bulk densities for
periwinkle shell and crepidula shell aggregate were found to range
from 1243 to 1353 kg/m3 [44,45] and 1216 to 1399 kg/m3 [43],
respectively.
2.5.2. Seashell powder
In some of the research work done in the past, seashell waste
was used in powdered form, which was obtained after crushing
and grinding the seashell waste. The size of the powder particle
varies from one research to another as this depends on the grinding
process.
Zhong et al. [30] used ground oyster shell powder passing
through a 165 lm sieve size with median particle size D50 of
1.61 and 58.53 lm for wet and dry ball grinding, respectively.
Ez-zaki et al. [32] reported the D50 particle size of calcined oyster
shell powder to be between 6.27 and 10.22 lm, whereas Lertwat-
tanaruk et al. [28] found the average particle size of oyster shell
powder to be 13.93 lm with a Blaine’s specific surface area of
14,280 cm2/g. In addition, Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] reported that
the average particle size of ground clam shell, mussel shell and
cockle shell powder was 20.80, 29.87 and 13.56 lm, respectively,
for which the Blaine’s surface area was determined as being
8279, 6186 and 8299 cm2/g, respectively. Othman et al. [47] used
ground cockle shell powder with an average particle size of
23.97 lm in their research.
In terms of the specific gravity of seashell waste powder, gener-
ally, it is similar to that obtained for seashell aggregate. Othman
et al. [47] found the specific gravity of cockle shell powder to be
2.07 whereas Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] determined that the speci-
fic gravity of clam shell, mussel shell, oyster shell and cockle shell
powder to be 2.71, 2.86, 2.65 and 2.82, respectively.
3. Treatment of seashell waste
Researchers generally suggested that a few important steps of
treatment should be considered prior to re-using seashell waste,
namely, washing, calcining, and crushing to the desired size. In
the case of seashells to be used in powdered form, additional grind-
ing is required. Generally, the washing process removes the salt
content of the seashell waste whereas heating or calcining is done
to remove the water and organic materials [39]. When seashell
waste is used as aggregate, crushing is required to ensure obtaining
smaller size fractions and a more rounded shape of the seashell
[26] for improvement in terms of the bonding with cement as well
as for reducing the voids within the aggregate [35].
Washing and normal drying of seashells under the sun have
been done in some studies [17,45]. Nevertheless, Varhen et al.
[17] recommended additional cleaning to further reduce the salt
content. The washing phase could also reduce the impurities and
chloride ion content present in the seashells [43]. The process of
washing and drying the seashell waste at about 105–110 °C was
adopted in a few research works on oyster shell aggregate
[26,36,41]. Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] heated mussel shell aggre-
gate at 135 °C for 32 min, which was in line with the treatment
method for poultry feeding. This is to ensure disinfection of the
aggregate for safe handling.
According to Djobo et al. [29], calcining at a temperature of 500
°C for 2 h is required to remove the organic matter attached to the
seashell. Chiou et al. [14] found that by calcining oyster shells
above a temperature of 650 °C for at least 1 h, the pH value could
be increased beyond 12.30, compared to the pH value of 8.80 for
un-calcined oyster shell. A calcining temperature of above 650 °C
and exceeding 1 h did not further increase the pH value of the oys-
ter shell significantly, and such a temperature and time were con-
sidered to be optimum for the treatment of the waste in terms of
energy saving. Ez-zaki et al. [32] compared the calcining tempera-
tures of 650 °C and 850 °C for 5 h. It was observed that calcining at
850 °C resulted in reduced calcite peaks and increased CaO peaks
from the XRD patterns of oyster shell powder. Barros et al. [12]
suggested a treatment protocol for processing mussel shells, which
specifies drying at 190 °C for 18 min followed by calcining at 500
°C for 15 min. Other alternative calcining temperatures and dura-
tions for seashell waste include 1000 °C for 1 h, 850–950 °C for 2
h, 500 °C for 3 days and 600 °C for 3 days, as conducted in the
research by Othman et al. [47], Li et al. [13], Olivia et al. [33],
and Olivia et al. [34], respectively.
Yao et al. [9] found that due to the smaller surface area of sea-
shell powder compared to limestone, grinding is necessary to
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764 757

Table 3
Effect of seashell waste on workability.

Reference Type of seashell Type of replacement Replacement level % increase (+)/decrease ( ) Type of test
[10] Oyster Fine aggregate Up to 20% Up to 92% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[31] Oyster Fine aggregate Up to 20% Up to 22% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[17] Scallop Fine aggregate Up to 60% Up to 15% (+) Slump test on concrete
[27] Scallop Aggregate Up to 60% Up to 45% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[18] Periwinkle Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 93% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[45] Periwinkle Coarse aggregate Up to 100% Up to 87% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[15] Mussel Fine aggregate Up to 100% Up to 92% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[15] Mussel Coarse aggregate Up to 100% Up to 92% ( ) Slump test on concrete
[36] – Fine aggregate Up to 100% Up to 13% ( ) Flow table test on mortar

improve the surface characteristics. When comparing different
types of grinding, Zhong et al. [30] observed that wet ball grinding
of oyster shells resulted in a finer and more homogenous powder
compared to dry ball grinding, and that this could increase the par-
ticle packing in concrete.
4. Influence on fresh properties
4.1. Workability
A summary of the effect of seashell waste inclusion on the
workability of mortar and concrete is given in Table 3. In general,
the inclusion of seashell waste as aggregate in mortar or concrete
reduced the respective workability. This was attributed to a few
main reasons, namely, the irregular particle shape, which promotes
particle friction, and the increased surface area, which increases
the water demand, as well as the absorption of water due to the
internal voids in the seashell waste.
Wang et al. [42] found that the flowability of mortar was
reduced in the presence of oyster shell fine aggregate, which had
an irregular particle shape. The irregular particle shape caused
increased friction of the materials and resulted in reduced worka-
bility. A similar observation was also reported by Safi et al. [36]. A
reduction in the slump was noticed in fresh concrete containing
oyster shells as partial fine aggregate replacement and for high
levels of substitution. Yang et al. [10] suggested the use of admix-
tures to improve the workability. Kuo et al. [31] noted that, at 5%
replacement of fine aggregate with oyster shells, the flowability
of the controlled low strength mortar could be enhanced; a further
increment of up to 20%, however, resulted in an expected reduction
in flowability due to the increased water demand. Additionally,
Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] reported that the presence of organic
matter could increase the paste viscosity, and, hence, reduce the
slump of fresh concrete containing mussel shell aggregate. Mussel
shell aggregate, when used as coarse aggregate replacement, had a
greater effect on the slump of concrete compared to the replace-
ment of fine aggregate; although at replacement levels of less than
12.5%, similar slump values as those for the control concrete were
observed [15]. Cuadrado-Rica et al. [27] reported a reduction of up
to 45% in the slump when crushed scallop shells were used at up to
60% aggregate replacement in concrete. Falade [18] reported a
reduction in slump of up to about 90% when periwinkle shells were
used at up to 50% replacement of coarse aggregate, whereas Ade-
wuyi and Adegoke [45] found a slump reduction of up to 67% when
up to 75% of coarse aggregate was replaced with periwinkle shells.
Conversely, Varhen et al. [17] observed increased slump when
crushed scallop shells were used at up to 40% replacement, which
was due to the absence of finer fractions that effectively made the
fine aggregate coarser. A further increase in replacement causes a
reduction in slump due to the presence of excess voids that cannot
be filled effectively [17]. Similarly, when mussel shell powder was
used as a replacement for limestone aggregate in mortar, the con-
sistency was found to increase marginally, which was attributed to
the coarser size of mussel shell compared to the limestone aggre-
gate [39].
When ground seashell powder was used at up to 20% cement
replacement, Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] observed an increased flow
in the mortar, which increased as the replacement level was
increased. This was attributed to the reduced cementitious mate-
rial, which would react with water, and since the ground seashells
were considered inert, there was an increase in the free water con-
tent. Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] commented that the different
specific surface area and particle size were to be considered when
comparing the effects of different types of seashell powder on the
flow of mortar.
4.2. Setting time
No noticeable effect was found on the setting time when
crushed oyster shells were used as aggregate [10]. In contrast,
Kuo et al. [31] found a reduction in penetration when oyster shell
fine aggregate was increased up to a replacement level of 20%,
which was possibly caused by the delayed hydration due to the
absorption of water by the shells, as well as the presence of organic
matter, which slowed the setting of the mortar. The presence of
chitin, which is a natural polysaccharide, was said to contribute
to the increased setting time in the mortar containing mussel shell
fine aggregate [15]. However, when oyster shell powder was incor-
porated as 10% partial replacement in volcanic ash-based geopoly-
mer paste, the initial setting time was found to decrease [29]. This
was due to the possible formation of a small amount of calcium sil-
icate hydrate (CSH) gel, which facilitated rapid hardening as a
result of the presence of calcium compound in the oyster shell.
At higher replacement levels, up to 30%, the initial setting time
was increased due to the more favourable formation of calcium
hydroxide [29,48]. The setting time increased in mortars contain-
ing ground seashell powder as a cement replacement, which was
due to the reduced hydration as a result of reduced cementitious
material [28]. However, contrasting findings were reported by Oli-
via et al. [34] whereby the final setting time was found to decrease
in the presence of 4% cement replacement with ground cockle and
clam shell powder.
4.3. Air content
In terms of air content, Cuadrado-Rica et al. [27] reported that
the presence of crushed scallop shells as fine aggregate up to 60%
replacement increased the entrapped air in fresh concrete due to
the elongated and flat shape of the shell as well as the presence
of organic content. The organic matter present could have stabi-
lized air bubbles, which formed in the concrete [27]. Eo and Yi
[49] also found increased air content from 2.2% to 5.6% in the pres-
ence of 50% crushed oyster shells as the aggregate replacement in
the concrete, which is attributed to the porous nature of the oyster
shell aggregate. However, Varhen et al. [17] did not find significant
758 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764

Table 4
Effect of seashell waste on the 28-day compressive strength.

Reference Type of seashell Type of replacement Replacement level % increase (+)/decrease ( ) in strength
[13] Oyster Lime Up to 15% Up to 14% (+)
[28] Oyster Cement Up to 20% Up to 43% ( )
[30] Oyster Cement 5% 5% (+)
[30] Oyster Cement 5–20% Up to 21% ( )
[31] Oyster Fine aggregate 5% 5% (+)
[31] Oyster Fine aggregate 5–20% Up to 35% ( )
[32] Oyster Cement Up to 22% Up to 61% ( )
[49] Oyster Fine aggregate Up to 50% Up to 10% ( )
[49] Oyster Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 50% ( )
[15] Mussel Fine aggregate Up to 100% Up to 72% ( )
[15] Mussel Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 46% ( )
[28] Mussel Cement Up to 20% Up to 63% ( )
[28] Cockle Cement Up to 20% Up to 50% ( )
[47] Cockle Cement Up to 50% Up to 73% ( )
[50] Cockle Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 19% ( )
[53] Cockle Fine aggregate Up to 30% Up to 17% (+)
[53] Cockle Fine aggregate 30–50% Up to 17% ( )
[17] Scallop Fine aggregate 5% 10% (+)
[17] Scallop Fine aggregate 5–60% Up to 10% ( )
[27] Scallop Fine aggregate Up to 60% Up to 27% ( )
[18] Periwinkle Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 63% ( )
[45] Periwinkle Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 30% ( )
[28] Clam Cement Up to 20% Up to 27% ( )
[36] – Fine aggregate Up to 100% Up to 17% ( )
[51] – Fine aggregate Up to 50% Up to 29% ( )
[51] – Coarse aggregate Up to 50% Up to 17% ( )

Fig. 6. Comparison of SEM photos for concrete without (left) and with oyster shells as 20% fine aggregate replacement (right) [31].

changes in the air content despite also replacing up to 60% fine
aggregate with scallop shells. This was attributed to the removal
of the finer fractions, which reduced the content of organic matter.
Yang et al. [10] also did not observe a noticeable change in the air
content due to the use of oyster shells as fine aggregate replace-
ment, which was presumably due to the maximum limit of 20%
replacement in the study.
density [15,27,32]. The poorer particle packing in the concrete with
seashells could also lead to reduced density [17]. On the other
hand, Safi et al. [36] reported contrasting findings whereby the
density of the mortar was marginally increased in the presence
of seashells as fine aggregate; this was attributed to the higher
specific gravity of the seashells used in the research compared to
normal sand.

5.2. Compressive strength

5. Effect on density and mechanical properties
5.1. Density
Researchers observed a slight reduction in the hardened density
of concrete when seashell waste, such as periwinkle shells [18],
oyster shells [49], mussel shells [15], scallop shells, and crepidula
shells [40], were used as aggregate replacement. Although the
specific gravity of the seashells was close to that of normal aggre-
gate, the entrapped air caused by the shape and organic content of
the seashell aggregate could also contribute to the reduction in
Based on the reported results, the effect of seashell waste
inclusion (as aggregate and cement replacement) on the 28-day
compressive strength are summarized in Table 4. The compressive
strength was generally found to decrease when seashells were
used as partial aggregate substitute, particularly at higher replace-
ment levels. The strength reduction was mainly attributed to the
increased surface area of the seashell aggregate, which resulted
in less cement paste for the coating, as well as the inherent weaker
strength of the seashell aggregate. SEM photos revealed that the
strength reduction was also due to poor bonding between the
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
seashell aggregate and the surrounding cement paste [15,31]
(Fig. 6), which was characterized by the presence of cracks and
high porosity in the interfacial zone.
In the investigations by Falade [18], and Adewuyi and Adegoke
[45], when the coarse aggregate replacement with periwinkle
shells was increased to up to 50%, the compressive strength was
found to reduce by up to 63% and 30%, respectively. Cuadrado-
Rica et al. [27] reported a decrease of up to 27% in the compressive
strength of the concrete when crushed scallop shells were used at
up to 60% aggregate replacement. A reduction of up to 19% in the
compressive strength of plain concrete was found when up to
25% fine aggregate was replaced by cockle shell aggregate; as
reported by Ponnada et al. [50]. Although an increase in the
replacement level beyond 5% resulted in a drop in compressive
strength, Varhen et al. [17] noted that by using coarser scallop
shells (>1 mm), a higher level of fine aggregate replacement could
be allowed due to the possible interlocking effect provided by the
particles. This was justified in the results whereby only a 10%
reduction was observed for a 60% replacement level in plain con-
crete. Safi et al. [36] found a maximum decrease of 17% in the com-
pressive strength of mortar when seashells were used as total sand
replacement. Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] found that the use of 25%
mussel shells as coarse and fine aggregate replacement reduced
the compressive strength of structural grade concrete by 23% and
38%, respectively. It was suggested that for non-structural grade
concrete, the maximum aggregate replacement level with mussel
shells should not exceed 25% to avoid an excessive reduction in
the compressive strength [15]. The additional reasons suggested
by Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] regarding the strength reduction
based on their research included the additional water added to
compensate for the absorption by the mussel shell aggregate, as
well as the flaky and flat shape of the aggregate, which trapped
the bleeding water in the inner part of the concrete. There are some
discrepancies regarding the effect of particle size, whereby
Martinez-Garcia et al. [15], and Richardson and Fuller [51]
observed slightly higher compressive strength reduction in the
case of seashells as fine aggregate replacement compared to that
for coarse aggregate replacement. On the other hand, Eo and Yi
[49] found that replacing normal fine aggregate with oyster shells
led to a lower strength reduction in the concrete compared to the
replacement of coarse aggregate, as reflected by the maximum
reductions of 10% and 50%, respectively, with replacement levels
up to 50%. This was corroborated by the findings of Yoon et al.
[26], and Eo and Yi [49] whereby specimens with smaller sized
oyster shell aggregate tended to have a lower reduction in the
compressive strength compared to the corresponding aggregate
of a larger size.
A few researchers found that there is an optimum level of
aggregate replacement with seashells in terms of the compressive
strength enhancement. Kuo et al. [31], and Varhen et al. [17]
observed an increase in the compressive strength when oyster
shells and scallop shells were incorporated as 5% sand replace-
ment, which was due to the effective filling of voids; however, a
further increase in the replacement level to 20% and 60%, respec-
tively, yielded lower compressive strength. On the other hand,
Yang et al. [10] reported that as oyster shells were included at up
to 20% fine aggregate replacement, the early age compressive
strength of mortar was higher compared to that of mortar without
oyster shells. This was said to be due to the water absorption of the
oyster shells, which effectively reduced the w/c ratio of the mortar.
However, at later ages beyond 56 days, the compressive strength of
the mortar with oyster shell aggregate was lower compared to the
control mortar, which was attributed to the build-up of stress con-
centration over time on the weaker oyster shell aggregate [41].
Similarly, Yusof et al. [52], and Muthusamy et al. [53] found an
improvement in the compressive strength when up to 30% fine
759
Fig. 7. SEM photo showing that oyster shells acted mainly as a filler in the powder.
particles of clam shell (<0.5 mm) and cockle shell (<1.18 mm)
aggregate were incorporated as sand replacement in concrete
and cement-sand bricks, respectively.
In pervious concrete, where seashells, such as scallop shells
[40,54], crepidula shells [40] and cockle shells [38], were used as
coarse aggregate replacement, the compressive strength was found
to decrease. The reduction in the compressive strength of the per-
vious concrete containing seashells could be due to the seashells
being weaker compared to normal aggregate, the increase in
porosity as a result of poor particle packing, the lower amount of
paste coating, and the presence of organic matter [40,55]. Coarser
sized seashell aggregate was found to reduce the compressive
strength of pervious concrete due to the less rounded shape, which
required more cement paste to coat it compared to the same sea-
shell type of smaller particle size [40,43].
As most research utilized seashell powder with higher fineness
compared to cement, although the seashell powder was considered
to be inert, the filler effect could improve the particle packing and
refine the pores. The inert nature of seashell powder can be
observed in the SEM photos taken by Zhong et al. [30] (Fig. 7). This
was further supported by the XRD on the paste sample where the
major product was observed to be calcium hydroxide due to the
cement hydration and CaCO3, which is a major component of oys-
ter shells [30]. Zhong et al. [30] observed an increase in the com-
pressive strength of the mortar when 5% oyster shell powder was
used to replace cement due to the filler effect. A further increase
of up to 20% replacement level, however, resulted in a reduction
in the compressive strength due to the reduction in the cement
content [30]. Similarly, Olivia et al. [33] reported an increase in
the compressive strength of the concrete when 4% cockle shells
were used to replace the cement, but a further increase of up to
8% resulted in a decrease in the strength. Despite the filler effect,
Lertwattanaruk et al. [28] observed a reduction in the compressive
strength of the mortar at all cement replacement levels up to 20%
using ground seashell powder. The filler effect, however, was said
to partially compensate the dilution effect of the reduced cement
content, and, hence, the compressive strength decrease was slight
[28]. A reduction in the compressive strength of up to 61% was
observed when cement was replaced with a 33% combination of
oyster shell powder-marine sediment in a ratio of 2:1 [32]. Othman
et al. [47] found 28-day compressive strength reductions of about
40% and 67% when cockle shell powder was used at 25% and 50%
cement replacement levels, respectively. When mussel shell pow-
der was used at one-third of the total cement content in concrete
blocks, the compressive strength was found to reduce by around
40% [56].
760 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
Although seashell waste is considered to be an inert material, its
combination along with pozzolanic material could be useful. This
was investigated by a few researchers with contrasting findings.
Li et al. [13] found that when fine oyster shell powder was used
as an addition up to 20% in cement-fly ash brick mixtures, the com-
pressive strength was increased. In cement-fly ash brick mixtures,
the presence of oyster shell powder facilitates the pozzolanic reac-
tion with fly ash as the calcium hydroxide concentration is
increased [13]. When ground granulated blast furnace slag was
incorporated at 75% cement replacement level, the mortar contain-
ing oyster shell fine aggregate exhibited a lower reduction in the
compressive strength compared to the plain cement mortar with
oyster shell fine aggregate [57]. However, Liang and Wang [58]
did not observe the expected reaction of oyster shell powder with
fly ash in soil-fly ash mixtures.
5.3. Tensile strength and elastic modulus
Since the tensile strength is related to the compressive
strength of concrete, in general, the effect of the inclusion of sea-
shells on the tensile strength of concrete follows a similar trend
to the compressive strength. Hence, the flexural strength and
splitting tensile strength are expected to decrease in the case
of seashell waste, such as scallop shells [27], oyster shells [49],
mussel shells [15], and periwinkle shells [18], as aggregate
replacement in cement-based materials. The reported amount
of tensile strength reduction in these studies was in the range
of 10–30%. Larger sized seashells were also found to contribute
to the lower tensile strength of pervious concrete [43]. Varhen
et al. [17] noted that since the splitting tensile strength depends
on the strength of the matrix, the effect of the inclusion of scal-
lop shells as fine aggregate replacement had little effect since
adequate adhesion between the seashell and cement paste could
be observed in their study. Safi et al. [36] also found a minimal
reduction in the flexural strength of mortar containing seashells
as aggregate. In the research by Yang et al. [10], similar to the
trend observed for the compressive strength, the early age split-
ting tensile strength was found to increase in concrete contain-
ing up to 10% oyster shells as fine aggregate replacement;
however, at later stages, the splitting tensile strength was higher
for the concrete without oyster shell aggregate. When used as
cement replacement material, corresponding to the effect
observed for the compressive strength, a maximum flexural
strength of mortar was observed at 5% replacement using oyster
shell powder, while a reduction of up to 10% was found when
the replacement level was increased to 20% [30]. A similar
reduction in the splitting tensile strength was also reported by
Olivia et al. [34] for concrete containing clam and cockle shell
powder replacing 4% of cement.
Considering the lower elastic modulus of seashells compared to
normal aggregate, researchers found a reduction in the elastic
modulus of the resulting concrete containing seashells. This was
reported by Yang et al. [10], and Yang et al. [41] for oyster shell
aggregate whereby a 10% reduction in the elastic modulus was
observed with a 20% aggregate replacement. Similarly, Martinez-
Garcia et al. [15] found a reduction of less than 25% in the elastic
modulus of concrete when mussel shell was used at up to 25%
aggregate replacement. Following the same trend as the elastic
modulus, Safi et al. [36] found a decrease in the dynamic elastic
modulus when seashells were used as an aggregate substitute in
mortar and the ratio of the static to dynamic elastic modulus
was in the range of 0.42–0.45. A reduction in the elastic modulus
of concrete was also observed when ground seashell powder was
used as partial cement replacement [33].
6. Effect on shrinkage and durability properties
6.1. Shrinkage
As oyster shells were incorporated as partial fine aggregate
replacement up to 20%, the shrinkage was found to increase by
about 17%, which was caused by the lower rigidity of the oyster
shells and the presence of larger fractions of fine particles [41].
Additionally, due to the higher moisture present in the oyster shell
aggregate, there was a greater loss of water due to drying, which
resulted in higher shrinkage of the concrete [31]. This observation
was corroborated by Martinez-Garcia et al. [15] whereby it was
observed that the weight loss of concrete with mussel shell fine
aggregate upon drying was higher than that of the control con-
crete, albeit the weight loss was similar to that of the control con-
crete in the case of the replacement of coarse aggregate with
mussel shell aggregate. On the other hand, a reduction of shrinkage
was observed by Wang et al. [42] when oyster shells were used as
partial fine aggregate replacement in mortar; it should be noted
that the inclusion of oyster shell aggregate was accompanied by
an equivalent amount of fly ash.
When tested up to 90 days, it was found that mortars with sea-
shell powder having greater fineness than cement exhibited lower
shrinkage compared to the control mortar, which was due to seg-
mentation of the large pores, and, consequently, a refined pore
structure [28]. For fly ash mortars containing oyster shell powder,
the early age shrinkage was higher whereas the later age shrinkage
was lower compared to the corresponding mortar with oyster shell
powder. This was attributed to the pozzolanic reactivity of fly ash
in the presence of oyster shell powder whereby pore refinement at
later ages contributed to the lower shrinkage [13].
6.2. Porosity
Based on the porosity test of concrete at 91 days, Cuadrado-Rica
et al. [27] concluded that the inclusion of scallop shells increased
the porosity, which was further increased at higher aggregate sub-
stitution levels. This was justified through the MIP test carried out
in the same research whereby concrete containing scallop shells
had large fractions of pore sizes greater than 1 lm. Higher porosity
in concrete was also observed by Kuo et al. [31] when the oyster
shell fine aggregate content was increased up to 20%. Safi et al.
[36] reported similar findings in mortar with up to 50% seashells
as fine aggregate replacement, although it was suggested that at
100% replacement, the porosity could be decreased due to effective
packing. Nguyen et al. [43] found that lower porosity was obtained
when smaller seashells were used in pervious concrete compared
to the corresponding concrete with larger sized seashells. On the
other hand, Ballester et al. [39] observed that in cement mortar,
replacing normal limestone aggregate with mussel shells yielded
a lower fraction of large-sized pores, which was attributed to the
morphology of mussel shells, which allowed for the formation of
a stronger microstructure.
In the research utilizing oyster shells in combination with mar-
ine sediment as cement replacement of 8%, 16% and 33%, Ez-zaki
et al. [32] observed an increase in the apparent porosity of the mor-
tars. With the apparent porosity of the control mortar being 17.4%,
cement replacement up to 33% yielded an increase in the apparent
porosity of up to 19.4% [32]. However, Othman et al. [47] found
that the porosity of concrete could be reduced when cockle shell
powder was used as cement replacement by not more than 15%.
In another investigation in which a comparison was made with
fly ash mortar with lime, the inclusion of oyster shell powder
together with the lime was found to reduce the porosity of the
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
Fig.8. Broken concrete specimen containing mussel shell aggregate [15].
mortar. This was justified by the increase in the percentage of
pores of less than 50 nm as the presence of oyster shell powder
facilitated the pozzolanic reaction of fly ash in the mortar [13].
6.3. Transport properties
Little difference was observed for the water penetration depth
for concrete with and without scallop shells as partial aggregate
replacement [27], although the water permeability coefficient
was found to increase in the presence of increased scallop shell
replacement. Interestingly, Martinez-Garcia et al. [15], and
Richardson and Fuller [51] observed reduced water penetration
depth in concrete when mussel shells and oyster shells were used
as aggregate replacement, respectively. Martinez-Garcia et al. [15]
suggested that using mussel shells as coarse aggregate replace-
ment had a greater effect in reducing water penetration depth
due to the preferential horizontal orientation of the shell, which
acted as a barrier to water penetration (Fig. 8). In pervious con-
crete, however, Nguyen et al. [43] and Khankaje et al. [55] con-
cluded that the water permeability increased when crepidula
shells and cockle shells were used as aggregate replacement due
to the higher porosity of the aggregate itself as well as the
decreased compactness of the concrete caused by the disturbed
aggregate packing.
Due to the porosity of oyster shells, increased fine aggregate
replacement levels from 5% to 20% resulted in higher water absorp-
tion of concrete; however, at the 5% replacement level the absorp-
tion was lower compared to the control concrete without oyster
shells [31]. Muthusamy et al. [53] utilized cockle shells of less than
1.18 mm in size as fine aggregate, and replacement of up to 30%
resulted in the reduced water absorption of concrete.
In the research carried out by Ez-zaki et al. [59], the substitution
of cement with oyster shell powder was found to improve the chlo-
ride penetration resistance of mortar, which was attributed to the
filler effect in refining the pores. However, according to Cuadrado-
Rica et al. [27], concrete containing scallop shells has a higher chlo-
ride diffusion coefficient and is categorized as very permeable to
chloride ions. In addition, increased cement replacement with oys-
ter shell powder beyond 33% was found to promote carbon dioxide
penetration in cement mortar, and, hence, greater carbonation risk
761
[32]. On the other hand, replacing up to 20% fine aggregate with
oyster shells did not significantly alter the carbonation depth of
concrete according to the research done by Yang et al. [41].
6.4. Chemical attack
As observed by Yang et al. [41], fine aggregate replacement with
oyster shells had little influence on the resistance of concrete to
acid attack. On the other hand, Kuo et al. [31] found that the weight
loss of concrete due to sulphate attack increased when oyster
shells were used as a sand substitute.
6.5. Freeze-thaw resistance
Researchers who used seashells as aggregate replacement in
pervious concrete found reduced freeze-thaw durability of the con-
crete [40,60], either by comparison of the weight loss or the num-
ber of cycles endured by the concrete. Nguyen et al. [40] found that
when using scallop shells, the pervious concrete can only sustain
about 60% freeze-thaw cycles compared to pervious concrete made
of normal aggregate. The reasons suggested include the lower ten-
sile strength of the concrete and the organic content of the seashell
[40]. In contrast, Yang et al. [41] found that oyster shells used at
10% and 20% of fine aggregate replacement, could improve the
freeze-thaw resistance of mortar as the finer fractions of the parti-
cles could fill the voids in the concrete. A positive effect on the
freeze-thaw resistance with lower strength loss of fly ash mortar
was observed in the presence of oyster shell powder as it facili-
tated the pozzolanic reaction of fly ash, which reduced the amount
of soluble calcium hydroxide [13].
7. Effect on insulation properties and structural performance
In terms of the thermal insulation properties, Lertwattanaruk
et al. [28] found that incorporation of seashell powder as cement
replacement could reduce the thermal conductivity of mortar
due to the increased porosity. The increase in open porosity
decreases the thermal conductivity of bricks, giving better thermal
insulation [16]. According to Islam et al. [46], mortar containing
oyster shells as fine aggregate had better heat absorption
762 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
Table 5
Summary of recommendations in the literature.
Reference Type of Type of Suggested replacement
seashell replacement level
[10] Oyster Fine aggregate Up to 20%
[49] Oyster Fine aggregate Less than 50%
[17] Scallop Fine aggregate Up to 40%
[27] Scallop Aggregate 20–60%
[47] Cockle Cement Not exceeding 15%
[53] Cockle Fine aggregate 20–30%
[15] Mussel Aggregate Up to 25%
compared to the mortar without oyster shells, and, therefore, the
mortar could be used as top filling to reduce the surface heat of
asphalt concrete. Khankhaje et al. [38] observed better sound
absorption for pervious concrete made with cockle shell aggregate
compared to that of normal aggregate, as it exhibited a higher
noise reduction coefficient. This was attributed to the higher void
content as a result of the angular shape and heterogeneous struc-
ture of the cockle shell aggregate.
Due to the low elastic modulus of seashells, it was suggested that
the higher deformability of reinforced concrete members using sea-
shell aggregate should be taken into account [61]. This was reflected
in the reinforced concrete beam tests whereby the deflection was
found to be 20% higher in concrete with periwinkle shells compared
to beams made of normal concrete [61]. Furthermore, cracking
occurred at a lower load for beams made with concrete containing
periwinkle shells as coarse aggregate. Despite the higher deflection
and cracking at lower loads, the ultimate moment resisted by beams
was found to be similar to that of a normal concrete beam, and Oran-
gun [61] suggested that normal reinforced concrete design can be
adopted subject to the modifications proposed for lightweight con-
crete. Falade and Telia [62], however, recommended that the maxi-
mum steel content for reinforced concrete beams made with
periwinkle shells as coarse aggregate should be 3.0% as compared
to 4.0% suggested for normal concrete beams.
8. Discussion
Since the main component of seashells is calcium carbonate,
which is similar to limestone, it can, therefore, be categorized as
an inert material in concrete or cement mortar. Seashell waste,
which can be used in either powder or aggregate form, does not
react chemically with cement and only acts as a filler material.
Despite this, the TGA results suggest that, at high temperatures,
the calcium carbonate can be converted into calcium oxide, and,
therefore, heat treatment could yield seashells richer in calcium
oxide content [14–16,37], which might be useful for enhancing
the reactivity if pozzolans are present in the concrete. As seashells
are primarily obtained as waste, proper handling and treatment of
the waste must be carried out before they are incorporated in con-
crete. Impurities are usually present in seashell waste, and, there-
fore, thorough washing and drying must be carried out before
using seashell waste in concrete to ensure that the impurities are
at the lowest level possible [39,43]. Additionally, due to the
smooth surfaces of seashells in their original form, crushing is sug-
gested to ensure better bonding between the seashell aggregate
and the cement as well as to reduce the internal voids [40,43] that
are commonly present in organic materials.
In terms of the workability of fresh concrete or mortar, gener-
ally, seashell waste used as partial aggregate replacement has an
adverse effect due to the increase in the amount of voids present
[10,15,17]. However, it is shown that by controlling the size frac-
tions by eliminating the finer sizes of the seashell aggregate, the
Parameter considered Remarks
Compressive strength Little effect on strength
Compressive strength Close to standard requirement of strength
Workability, Mechanical properties Little effect on parameters considered
Compressive strength, durability Little effect on parameters considered
parameters
Porosity –
Compressive strength Improvement in strength
– Fulfil requirement for structural and non-
structural concrete
adverse effect on workability can be reduced, however, this must
also be supplemented by limiting the amount of aggregate replace-
ment. Regarding the use of seashell powder as a cement replace-
ment, there is insufficient literature available to conclude its
effect on workability. On the one hand, reduced cement content
through replacing with more seashell powder could improve the
workability as the degree of hydration is lower [28], while, on
the other, for seashell powder to be used as a filler material, the
fineness is usually higher than that for cement, which could
increase the water demand.
According to the summarized findings, the use of seashell waste
as aggregate generally resulted in a reduction in the strength prop-
erties. The main reasons for the reduction in strength are the inher-
ent weaker strength of aggregate, the increased surface area, which
resulted in reduced cement paste coating [40], the presence of
voids, and the poor bonding of the aggregate and cement matrix
[15,31]. Because of this, it is generally not recommended to adopt
a high level of aggregate replacement with seashells; based on the
literature, preferably below 20% (Table 5). In addition, the effect of
seashell waste powder as cement replacement on the strength of
concrete is not conclusive considering the contrasting reports
found and insufficient literature. There could be a beneficial effect
on the strength due to the filler effect, but, at the same time, the
strength could decrease as a result of the reduced cement content
when the seashell powder is used as a cement replacement.
The use of seashells as aggregate and powder has a contrasting
effect on the shrinkage whereby increased shrinkage is caused by
using seashells as aggregate due to the lower restraining effect
[41] and the higher rate of water loss [31]. Meanwhile, seashell
powder, because of the higher fineness compared to cement,
reduces the pores in concrete, and, therefore, contributes to lower
shrinkage when used as a cement replacement [28]. Despite a
number of tests being conducted in the past, there is still a lack
of agreement regarding the effect of seashell waste on the durabil-
ity of concrete, particularly when seashell powder is used as
cement replacement. However, some general trends on the effect
of seashell aggregate utilization with regard to the porosity and
water permeability of concrete can be observed. For instance,
porosity was found to increase in the presence of seashells used
as partial aggregate replacement for given size fractions similar
to normal sand [27,31] while there is generally no adverse effect
on the water permeability caused by the inclusion of seashell
aggregate in plain concrete [15,27]. On the other hand, based on
a few reported findings, it is interesting to note that the use of sea-
shell waste in concrete had a positive effect on the insulation prop-
erties – thermal and sound [28,38,46].
9. Conclusion
As seashell waste has a similar composition to limestone, which
is considered to be non-reactive in concrete, the material has the
potential to be further developed as a fine filler material, provided
 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764 763

proper treatment is carried out to ensure its quality. Moreover, [22] C.H. Lee, D.K. Lee, M.A. Ali, P.J. Kim, Effects of oyster shell on soil chemical and
biological properties and cabbage productivity as a liming materials, Waste
based on the literature, adequate workability and strength of con-
Manage. 28 (12) (2008) 2702–2708.
crete made with seashell waste, particularly as a partial fine aggre- [23] C.O. Hong, S.Y. Kim, J. Gutierrez, V.N. Owens, P.J. Kim, Comparison of oyster
gate replacement, could be attained as long as the maximum shell and calcium hydroxide as liming materials for immobilizing cadmium in
replacement levels are limited to below 20%. Considering that upland soil, Biol. Fertil. Soils 46 (5) (2010) 491–498.
[24] Z.T. Yao, T. Chen, H.Y. Li, M.S. Xia, Y. Ye, H. Zheng, Mechanical and thermal
the durability aspects are still not well explored and there is good properties of polypropylene (PP) composites filled with modified shell waste, J.
potential in insulation properties, the incorporation of seashell Hazard. Mater. 262 (2013) 212–217.
waste could be considered in concrete for non-structural or insula- [25] H. Moustafa, A.M. Youssef, S. Duquesne, N.A. Darwish, Characterization of bio-
filler derived from seashell wastes and its effect on the mechanical, thermal,
tion applications where there is little concern about durability. By and flame retardant properties of ABS composites, Polym. Compos. (2015),
doing so, a significant amount of waste from the shellfish and fish- https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.23878.
eries industry could be decreased, and, at the same time, help to [26] H. Yoon, S. Park, K. Lee, J. Park, Oyster shell as substitute for aggregate in
mortar, Waste Manage. Res. 22 (3) (2004) 158–170.
conserve the environment through the reduced usage of virgin [27] H. Cuadrado-Rica, N. Sebaibi, M. Boutouil, B. Boudart, Properties of ordinary
materials in the construction industry. concretes incorporating crushed queen scallop shells, Mater. Struct. 49 (5)
(2016) 1805–1816.
[28] P. Lertwattanaruk, N. Makul, C. Siripattarapravat, Utilization of ground waste
Acknowledgements seashells in cement mortars for masonry and plastering, J. Environ. Manage.
111 (2012) 133–141.
[29] Y.J.N. Djobo, A. Elimbi, J.D. Manga, I.B.D.L. Ndjock, Partial replacement of
The financial supported provided by the University of Malaya volcanic ash by bauxite and calcined oyster shell in the synthesis of volcanic
under the grant BK050-2016 is gratefully acknowledged. ash-based geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater. 113 (2016) 673–681.
[30] B. Zhong, Q. Zhou, C. Chan, Y. Yu, Structure and property characterization
of oyster shell cementing material, Chin. J. Struct. Chem. 31 (1) (2012)
References 85–92.
[31] W. Kuo, H. Wang, C. Shu, D. Su, Engineering properties of controlled low-
strength materials containing waste oyster shells, Constr. Build. Mater. 46
[1] M. Behera, S.K. Bhattacharyya, A.K. Minocha, R. Deoliya, S. Maiti, Recycled
(2013) 128–133.
aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete – a breakthrough towards
[32] H. Ez-zaki, A. Diouri, S. Kamali-Bernard, O. Sassi, Composite cement mortars
sustainability in construction sector: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014)
based on marine sediments and oyster shell powder, Mater. Constr. 66 (321)
501–516.
(2016), https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2016.01915.
[2] K. McNeil, T.H.K. Kang, Recycled concrete aggregates: a review, Int. J. Concr.
[33] M. Olivia, A.A. Mifshella, L. Darmayanti, Mechanical properties of seashell
Struct. Mater. 7 (1) (2013) 61–69.
concrete, Proc. Eng. 125 (2015) 760–764.
[3] C. Shi, C. Meyer, A. Behnood, Utilization of copper slag in cement and concrete,
[34] M. Olivia, R. Oktaviani Ismeddiyanto, Properties of concrete containing ground
Res. Conser. Recyc. 52 (10) (2008) 1115–1120.
waste cockle and clam seashells, Proc. Eng. 171 (2017) 658–663.
[4] K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, A review on the use of agriculture waste
[35] I. Garcia, E. Heras, F. Puertas, I. Oteiza. F., Martin-Consuegra, J.J. Legarra, Tests
material as lightweight aggregate for reinforced concrete structural members,
on mortars and concrete made with seashells as aggregate. Case study in
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/365197.
Mauritania, in: 11th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials
[5] K.H. Mo, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, S.P. Yap, S.C. Lee, Green concrete partially
and Technologies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, 2009.
comprised of farming waste residues: a review, J. Cle. Pro. 117 (2016) 122–138.
[36] B. Safi, M. Saidi, A. Daoui, A. Bellal, A. Mechekak, K. Toumi, The use of seashells
[6] J.K. Prusty, S.K. Patro, Properties of fresh and hardened concrete using agro-
as a fine aggregate (by sand substitution) in self-compacting mortar (SCM),
waste as partial replacement of coarse aggregate – a review, Constr. Build.
Constr. Build. Mater. 78 (2015) 430–438.
Mater. 82 (2015) 101–113.
[37] M. Mohamed, S. Yusup, S. Maitra, Decomposition study of calcium carbonate
[7] T. Ling, C. Poon, Stress-strain behaviour of fire exposed self-compacting glass
in cockle shell, J. Eng. Sci. Tech. 7 (1) (2012) 1–10.
concrete, Fire Mater. 37 (4) (2013) 297–310.
[38] E. Khankhaje, M.R. Salim, J. Mirza, Salmiati, M.W. Hussin, R. Khan, M.
[8] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, A comprehensive review on the applications of waste
Rafieizonooz, Properties of quiet pervious concrete containing oil palm kernel
tire rubber in cement concrete, Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 54 (2016)
shell and cockleshell, App. Acous. 122 (2017) 113–120.
1323–1333.
[39] P. Ballester, I. Marmol, J. Morales, L. Sanchez, Use of limestone obtained from
[9] Z. Yao, M. Xia, H. Li, T. Chen, Y. Ye, H. Zheng, Bivalve shell: not an abundant
waste of the mussel cannery industry for the production of mortars, Cem.
useless waste but a functional and versatile biomaterial, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Concr. Res. 37 (4) (2007) 559–564.
Technol. 44 (2014) 2502–2530.
[40] D.H. Nguyen, M. Boutouil, N. Sebaibi, F. Baraud, L. Leleyter, Durability of
[10] E. Yang, S. Yi, Y. Leem, Effect of oyster shell substituted for fine aggregate on
pervious concrete using crushed seashells, Constr. Build. Mater. 135 (2017)
concrete characteristics: Part I. Fundamental properties, Cem. Concr. Res. 35
137–150.
(11) (2005) 2175–2182.
[41] E. Yang, M. Kim, H. Park, S. Yi, Effect of partial replacement of sand with dry
[11] G. Yoon, B. Kim, B. Kim, S. Han, Chemical-mechanical characteristics of crushed
oyster shell on the long-term performance of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 24
oyster-shell, Waste Manage. 23 (9) (2003) 825–834.
(5) (2010) 758–765.
[12] M.C. Barros, P.M. Bello, M. Bao, J.J. Torrado, From waste to commodity:
[42] H. Wang, W. Kuo, C. Lin, C. Po-Yo, Study of the material properties of fly ash
transforming shells into high purity calcium carbonate, J. Cle. Pro. 17 (3)
added to oyster cement mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 532–537.
(2009) 400–407.
[43] D.H. Nguyen, M. Boutouil, N. Sebaibi, L. Leleyter, F. Baraud, Valorization of
[13] G. Li, X. Xu, E. Chen, J. Fan, G. Xiong, Properties of cement-based bricks with
seashell by-products in pervious concrete pavers, Constr. Build. Mater. 49
oyster-shells ash, J. Cle. Pro. 91 (2015) 279–287.
(2013) 151–160.
[14] I.J. Chiou, C.H. Chen, Y.H. Li, Using oyster-shell foamed bricks to neutralize the
[44] F. Falade, E.E. Ikponmwosa, N.I. Ojediran, Behaviour of lightweight concrete
acidity of recycled rainwater, Constr. Build. Mater. 64 (2014) 480–487.
containing periwinkle shells at elevated temperature, J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 5 (4)
[15] C. Martinez-Garcia, B. Gonzalez-Fonteboa, F. Martinez-Abella, D. Carro-Lopez,
(2010) 379–390.
Performance of mussel shell as aggregate in plain concrete, Constr. Build.
[45] A.P. Adewuyi, T. Adegoke, Exploratory study of periwinkle shells as coarse
Mater. 139 (2017) 570–583.
aggregates in concrete works, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 3 (6) (2008) 1–5.
[16] M. Felipe-Sese, D. Eliche-Quesada, F.A. Corpas-Iglesias, The use of solid
[46] M.R. Islam, I. Satoru, Y. Masayoshi, Surface heat reduction of asphalt concrete
residues derived from different industrial activities to obtain calcium
by top filling with mortar prepared by oyster shell aggregate and ground
silicates for use as insulating construction materials, Ceram. Int. 37 (8)
granulated blast furnace slag and their strength in different curing condition,
(2011) 3019–3028.
IDRE J. 296 (2015) 1–7.
[17] C. Varhen, S. Carrillo, G. Ruiz, Experimental investigation of Peruvian scallop
[47] N.H. Othman, B.H.A. Bakar, M.M. Don, M.A.M. Johari, Cockle shell ash
used as fine aggregate in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 533–540.
replacement for cement and filler in concrete, Mal. J. Civ. Eng. 25 (2) (2013)
[18] F. Falade, An investigation of periwinkle shells as coarse aggregate in concrete,
201–211.
Build. Environ. 30 (4) (1995) 573–577.
[48] J.N.Y. Djobo, H.K. Tchakoute, N. Ranjbar, A. Elimbi, L.N. Tchadjie, D. Njopwouo,
[19] N. Seco-Reigosa, L. Cutillas-Barreiro, J.C. Novoa-Munoz, M. Arias-Estevez, M.J.
Gel composition and strength properties of alkali-activated oyster shell-
Fernandez-Sanjurjo, E. Alvarez-Rodriguez, A. Nunez-Delgado, Mixtures
volcanic ash: effect of synthesis conditions, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 99 (9) (2016)
including wastes from the mussel shell processing industry: retention of
3159–3166.
arsenic, chromium and mercury, J. Cle. Pro. 84 (2014) 680–690.
[49] S. Eo, S. Yi, Effect of oyster shell as an aggregate replacement on the
[20] N. Seco-Reigosa, S. Pena-Rodriguez, J.C. Novoa-Munoz, M. Arias-Estevez, M.J.
characteristics of concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (15) (2015) 833–842.
Fernandez-Sanjurjo, E. Alvarez-Rodriguez, A. Nunez-Delgado, Arsenic,
[50] M.R. Ponnada, S.S. Prasad, H. Dharmala, Compressive strength of concrete with
chromium and mercury removal using mussel shell ash or a sludge/ashes
partial replacement of aggregates with granite powder and cockle shell, Mal. J.
waste mixture, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20 (4) (2013) 2670–2678.
Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2016) 183–204.
[21] Y.S. Ok, S. Oh, M. Ahmad, S. Hyun, K. Kim, D. Moon, S. Lee, K. Lim, W. Jeon, J.
[51] A.E. Richardson, T. Fuller, Sea shells used as partial aggregate replacement in
Yang, Effects of natural and calcined oyster shells on Cd and Pb immobilization
concrete, Str. Surv. 31 (5) (2013) 347–354.
in contaminated soils, Environ. Earth Sci. 61 (6) (2010) 1301–1308.
764 K.H. Mo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 162 (2018) 751–764
[52] M. Yusof, S.J.J. Ujai, F. Sahari, S.N.L. Taib, N.H.N. Mohamed, Application of clam
(lokan) shell as beach retaining wall, in: Proceedings of EnCon 2011, 4th
Engineering Conference, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 2011.
[53] K. Muthusamy, S.M.A. Nasir, A.M. Budiea, N. Nordin, Properties of cement sand
brick containing finely crushed cockle shell as partial fine aggregates
replacement, Concr. Res. Lett. 7 (4) (2016) 132–137.
[54] M. Sugiyama, The compressive strength of concrete containing tile chips,
crushed scallop shells, or crushed roofing tiles, in: M. Limbachiya, J.J. Roberts
(Eds.), Construction Demolition Waste, Thomas Telford Publishing, UK, 2004,
pp. 165–172.
[55] E. Khankaje, M. Rafieizonooz, M.R. Salim, J. Mirza, Salmiati, M.W. Hussin,
Comparing the effects of oil palm kernel shell and cockle shell on
properties of pervious concrete pavement, Int. J. Pave. Res. Tech. 10
(2017) 383–392.
[56] L. Wang, D.C.W. Tsang, C. Poon, Green remediation and recycling of
contaminated sediment by waste-incorporated stabilization/solidification,
Chemosphere 122 (2015) 257–264.
View publication stats
[57] M.R. Islam, I. Satoru, Effects of partial replacement of cement by ground
granulated blast furnace slag on compressive strength of oyster shell
aggregate mortar, IDRE J. 294 (2014) 19–24.
[58] C. Liang, H. Wang, Feasibility of pulverized oyster shell as a cementing
material, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/809247.
[59] H. Ez-zaki, A. Diouri, S. Kamali-Bernard, Transport properties of blended cement
based on dredged sediment and shells, Adv. Mater. Lett. 8 (4) (2017) 481–485.
[60] M. Sugiyama, The freeze-thaw test results of porous concrete with crushed
scallop shell material added, in: R.K. Dhir, M.D. Newlands, J.E. Halliday (Eds.),
Recycling and Reuse of Waste Materials, Thomas Telford Publishing, UK, 2003,
pp. 459–464.
[61] C.O. Orangun, The suitability of periwinkle shells as coarse aggregate for
structural concrete, Mater. Struct. 7 (5) (1974) 341–346.
[62] F. Falade, F. Telia, Structural performance of lightweight reinforced beams
containing periwinkle shell as coarse aggregate, in: R.K. Dhir, T.D. Dyer, J.E.
Halliday (Eds.), Challenges of Concrete Construction: Volume 5, Sustainable
Concrete Construction, Thomas Telford Publishing, UK, 2002, pp. 695–702.