Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

A critical review and gap analysis on the use of coal bottom ash as a
substitute constituent in concrete
Sharon Gooi, Ahmad A. Mousa*, Daniel Kong
School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

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

Article history: Coal has been increasingly used in the past few decades as a fuel source in power plants and industrial
Received 25 July 2019 facilities in many countries. The escalating demand for coal has been associated with undesirable
Received in revised form combustion byproducts, such as coal bottom ash (CBA). There are attempts to utilize CBA as a replace-
20 March 2020
ment for fine aggregates or cement in concrete, or to produce geopolymers. This review critically collates
Accepted 15 April 2020
Available online 22 May 2020
the reported physical and chemical characteristics of CBA and discusses the impact of the source (lo-
cality) on its characteristics. A number of treatments have been commonly performed on CBA to enhance
Handling Editor: Baoshan Huang its pozzolanic reaction or mechanical properties for use in concrete and mortar. Treatments span sieving,
grinding, and inclusion of superplasticizer or alkali activators. It was observed that CBA treatment type,
Keywords: rather than content, has a higher impact on the compressive strength. The achieved strength for con-
Coal bottom ash crete, mortar and cement paste vastly vary from 1 to 163 MPa, depending on CBA utilization and mix
Sand replacement design. The microstructure as well as the properties of the fresh and hardened CBA concrete are dis-
Cement replacement cussed in this review. A gap analysis has shown that the long-term durability, leaching, abrasion resis-
Geopolymer concrete
tance and chemical attack resistance of CBA concrete require further evaluation. Despite the source
Gap analysis
dependency, the review has shown the potential of CBA for a wide range of applications.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methodology and approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Characteristics of CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Production of CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Physical attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Chemical composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Treatment of CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Building with CBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. CBA as sand replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. CBA as cement replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. CBA-derived geopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.4. Evaluation and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Microstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. Other Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.1. Fresh concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.2. Hardened concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Summary of review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmad.mousa@monash.edu (A.A. Mousa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121752
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752

8. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Abbreviations and definitions Fe2O3 Iron(III) oxide or ferric oxide

Geopolymer concrete Concrete with no OPC content
Alkali activators Chemicals used to stimulate the established HSC High strength concrete (abbreviation used in table)
pozzolanic activity of CBA l/b ratio Liquid/binder ratio, the binder is the total content of
Al2O3 Aluminum oxide or alumina cementitious materials
CBA concrete Concrete made with CBA as binder or aggregate LOI content (%) Carbon content and other unburnt constituents
replacement in CBA
CBA geopolymer Cementless concrete made with CBA as a LSC Low strength concrete (abbreviation used in table)
source of alumina and silica NSC Normal strength concrete (abbreviation used in
CBA mortar Mortar made with CBA as binder or aggregate table)
replacement OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
Cement replacement Partial or full replacement of OPC by CBA Sand replacement Partial or full replacement of fine aggregates
Control cement paste Cement paste made with 100% OPC as a by CBA
binder SiO2 Silicon dioxide or silica
Control concrete Concrete made with 100% OPC as a binder UHSC Ultra-high strength concrete (abbreviation used in
Control mortar Mortar made with 100% OPC as a binder table)
Control mix Concrete or mortars made without CBA wt% Percentage by weight (used throughout paper for
fcu,28 Compressive strength of 28-day concrete, mortar or chemical composition and materials unless
cement paste mentioned otherwise

1. Introduction or wet ponding, where the ash is mixed with water until a slurry is
formed and stored in ponds (Goodwin, 2014). Wet ponding is less
The construction industry has long recognized the adverse labor-intensive, transportation-wise, compared to dry ponding
environmental impacts of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). For since the watered slurry can be pumped to the ponds. The utiliza-
each ton of OPC produced, 0.8 tons of carbon dioxide is generated, tion of CBA as a building material can ensure more efficient land use
contributing to the global greenhouse effect (Argiz et al., 2018). and reduces the environmental burden associated with the
Similarly, river sand is a finite natural resource that has been uti- disposal. In addition, the binder replacement of OPC and aggregate
lized as the primary source of fine aggregates used in concrete replacement of river sand with CBA reduces the carbon footprint
production. A common material used to replace OPC is fly ash (FA), and the consumption of natural resource.
a coal power plant byproduct that has high silica, alumina and iron Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) are pozzolans
oxide content. Coal bottom ash (CBA) is an underutilized byproduct that partially replace OPC in order to modify the properties of the
from power plants that is commonly used as a river sand substitute. cement or to produce a more sustainable concrete. This class of
An overview of the production of CBA can provide the basic back- materials includes a wide range of by-products such as fly ash, blast
ground on the origin of the material and the essential character- furnace slag, micro silica or silica fume, waste glass powder and
istics for efficient utilization. metakaolin (details can be found in many references, e.g. Panesar,
Fuel such as coal, biomass or municipal solid waste is fed to 2019; Singh, 2018; Xiao et al., 2020b, 2020a). One of the major
boilers and incinerators and produce ash byproducts. The finer and benefits of SCMs is their ability to combat the detrimental alkali
lighter particles are carried up through the chimney, where they are silica reaction (ASR) through which the high pH OPC attacks the
collected using filters - this residue is known as FA. The larger and siliceous aggregates causing a dramatic reduction in the concrete’s
heavier ash from the fuel source settles at the bottom hopper and is strength (Thomas, 2011). ASR is responsible for crack developing in
known as bottom ash (BA) (Nguyen et al., 2017). The bottom ash is concrete, which increases its permeability and significantly de-
named after the origin of its fuel source with a prefix. As such, grades its chemical resistance (Singh, 2018). The presence of SCMs
bottom ash produced from a coal boiler or incinerator is known as in a blended cement lowers the initial alkali ion concentration
CBA, while bottom ash produced from a municipal solid waste (Thomas, 2011) and impedes ASR (Panesar, 2019). CBA is yet to be
incinerator (MSWI) is known as MSWI bottom ash. identified as an SCM, but the material has the potential given its
The handling and disposal of FA and CBA are regulated for health similar chemical composition to FA, as will be discussed.
and safety reasons. FA has been extensively researched for recycling The CBA used in the reviewed studies has similar fineness
purposes due to its high fineness and high level of silica (SiO2) and modulus (FM) to that of river sand, approximately 1.6e2.2, making
alumina (Al2O3) that provide cementitious qualities (Rafieizonooz it a suitable substitute for fine aggregates (Youcai and Sheng, 2017).
et al., 2016). As such, it is commonly used by cement manufac- The significant presence of silica and alumina in CBA allows its use
turers to become a component of cement clinkers. On the other as an OPC replacement and potentially a constituent in geopolymer
hand, CBA is typically disposed in landfills (known as dry ponding) concrete. CBA can serve as a sustainable filler or aggregate
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Fig. 1. Evolution of CBA utilization as a construction material. 1: Anderson et al. (1976), 2: Harrison (1974), 3: Kohno and Komatsu (1986), 4: Usmen et al. (1983), 5: Cheriaf et al.
(1999), 6: Nisnevich (1997), 7: Lee et al. (2010), 8: Kim et al. (2010), 9: Kurama et al. (2009), 10: Kurama and Kaya (2008), 11: Arenas et al. (2015), 12: Siddique et al. (2012), 13:
Sataet al. (2012).
replacement in concrete construction, such as road sub-bases, noise
barriers, embankments and to produce lightweight concrete
(Arenas et al., 2015; Aydin, 2016). Fig. 1 depicts selected milestones
of notable CBA utilization in construction over the last five decades.
The CBA’s pozzolanic properties were observed in 1999, but it has
been tested for use in concrete as both fine aggregate and OPC
replacement since the 1970s (Cheriaf et al., 1999; Harrison, 1974;
Kohno and Komatsu, 1986). Grinding of CBA to replace cement in
mortar and concrete was performed in 1986 (Kohno and Komatsu,
1986). Particle size classification, heavy medium separation, and
electrostatic separation were carried out on CBA to remove unburnt
content (Kurama and Kaya, 2008). However, despite these research
efforts, particularly in the last two decades, CBA is yet to be
recognized as a key substitute material by the construction in-
dustry. The main limiting factor is the lower pozzolanic reactivity
and irregular morphology of CBA in comparison to FA.
2. Methodology and approach
In order to maximize the utilization of CBA, a thorough under-
standing of its characteristics and effects as a substitute material
needs to be established a priori. As such, the variation in the
physical attributes and chemical composition of CBA from different
countries and sources is evaluated in this review. The treatments
conducted on raw (as received) CBA are categorized to identify
commonly used methods. The compressive strength values of CBA
concrete, mortar and in geopolymer are compiled from the litera-
ture with emphasis on the effect of CBA content and treatment on
the strength. The microstructure and other frequently character-
ized properties of CBA concrete and mortar such as workability and
chemical resistance are examined to distinguish possible trends
related to CBA content and treatments. Lastly, a gap analysis is
conducted to identify the aspects and characteristics that require
further research and evaluation. Two categories of aspects are
analyzed. The first category involves the general aspects that the
reviewed studies display, such as characterization and treatments
of CBA, as well as fresh and hardened concrete properties. The
3
second category analyzes the fresh and hardened concrete prop-
erties in-depth, ranking the aspects according to their total score.
Despite the recent boost in utilizing renewable energy and
natural gas for power generation, the use of coal as a fossil fuel in
power plants has increased noticeably in the last decade, particu-
larly in developing countries (Harvey, 2019). In parallel, there has
been a surge in research investigating the waste byproducts from
coal, such as CBA, FA and even pond ash within this timeframe.
Journal and conference papers on the use of CBA in concrete pub-
lished in the past six years (2014e2019) were selected from major
research repositories. This publication period was chosen to reflect
recent insights into the current utilization of CBA. The pertinent
research published before 2014 is not discussed herein since in-
depth reviews covering this time period are available (e.g. Kim
and Lee, 2015). There are two tiers for selection and screening: (i)
title and abstract; and (ii) full-text. Studies with inadequate dis-
cussion of CBA properties or non-informative findings were judged
unsuitable to this review.
This current review spans CBA utilization as a fine aggregate
replacement, cement replacement or as a binder in geopolymer
concrete. Research utilizing CBA as the main binder in geopolymer
concrete was included as a potentially sustainable building material
solution. It should be noted that the quality of the reported data
varies, and the findings regarding CBA performance are source
dependent. Of the relevant 109 studies reviewed, 63 utilized CBA as
a sand replacement, 34 examined CBA as a cement replacement
and the remaining 12 addressed CBA utilization in geopolymer
concrete. Several studies tested these utilizations of CBA in
different material forms. For example, Luna et al. (2014) used CBA to
replace sand in brick and geopolymer concrete, and Haq et al.
(2014) made CBA-derived geopolymers in mortar and concrete
forms. Two of the studies reviewed (Mene
ndez et al., 2020; Paija
et al., 2020) are open for discussion until 2020, but were made
available online in 2019, and therefore they are considered within
the scope of this review. Most of the available studies are limited to
local experiences with CBA utilization. As such, ‘universality’ in the
conclusions they put forward may not be warranted. Lapses and
4 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
discrepancies in the literature are highlighted accordingly as
appropriate.
3. Characteristics of CBA
Despite the growing research efforts on finding sustainable al-
ternatives for OPC and river sand, they are still the dominating
constituents of concrete, due to their well-established character-
istics, large scale production and low costs. In the United States, an
estimation of over 100 million tons of coal waste is produced in a
single year (American Coal Ash Association, 2017), while in Europe,
an estimated 40 million tons of coal waste residues were produced
in 2016 alone (ECOBA, 2016). The integration of CBA in the con-
struction industry can result in significant reduction of coal waste
disposal into landfills.
3.1. Production of CBA
CBA is received as a raw material from different coal industries
and facilities such as power plants and factories. There is a sub-
stantial amount of air pollutants and waste materials produced
through coal incineration. The emission of air pollutants such as
nitrous oxide (NOx), fine particulate matter (PM) and sulfur (S), are
controlled through a series of filters and released through the
stacks emission chimney. Fig. 2 depicts key processes in a typical
coal-fired power plant.
There are several factors that influence the production of CBA,
including the type and source of the coal used. The type of coal used in
the facilities has a major effect on the chemical composition of CBA.
Lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous and anthracite coal contain
variable levels of carbon, moisture, and other compounds. Anthracite
coal has the highest amount of carbon, about 86e97%, followed by
bituminous coal, with about 40e80% carbon (Kopp, 2018; Morse and
Turgeon, 2012). The category requirements for each grade of coal
differ between countries, but the major components are regulated by
ASTM D388-18a (2018) and D4326-13 (2013). Bituminous, sub-
bituminous and lignite coal are the main types of coal used for en-
ergy generation in power plants (Morse and Turgeon, 2012). This
difference in coal type used has resulted in variations in the silica
(SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), ferric oxide (Fe2O3) and LOI levels in CBA, with
anthracite and bituminous coal waste having less carbon and impu-
rities compared to lignite or sub-bituminous coal waste.
The chemical composition of coal used for industrial purposes
largely depends on the geological formations that the ore was
Fig. 2. Typical coal-fired thermal power plant (adapted from Coal combustion byproducts, 2018).
collected from (Morse and Turgeon, 2012). The source-dependency
subsequently creates inherent variabilities in the reported CBA
characteristics, which affects the generality of the pertinent
research findings and results. For example, a European CBA con-
crete, with very high silica and alumina content, would likely result
in higher compressive strength and distinct microstructure due to
increased pozzolanic activity, compared to Indonesian CBA con-
crete with lower pozzolanic content (Antoni et al., 2017; Luna et al.,
2014). In view of this, comparisons between the studies performed
in different countries need to consider the variation in the physical
and chemical characteristics of CBA utilized.
3.2. Physical attributes
Adequate material characterization of industrial byproducts is
pivotal to identify the physical properties that are innately present.
A comprehensive understanding of these attributes can lead to
proper CBA utilization, provide a baseline for comparison against
another material, or support improvement of specific characteris-
tics. Table 1 compiles the commonly tested physical characteristics
of CBA, namely specific gravity (Gs ), specific surface area (SSA),
fineness modulus (FM) and moisture absorption (u) reported for
facilities from different countries.
The CBA properties summarized in Table 1 can affect the mix
design for concrete or cement in various ways. For example, an
increased SSA enhances the reaction between CBA particles and
chemicals. This increases the formation of Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate
(CeSeH) gel or the Calcium-Aluminate-Silicate-Hydrate (C-A-S-H)
in concrete. Fineness modulus (FM) can affect the utilization of CBA
as an aggregate. The FM values reported by the reviewed studies
have a wide range, but the majority fit within the typical range for
fine sand, which is 1.6e2.2 (Youcai and Sheng, 2017). Fineness can
be modified to suit the application by grinding of CBA. The u levels
of CBA vary widely from facility to facility, and can be affected by
the LOI content in CBA. Measuring the u of raw CBA is critical as it
can affect the workability of the mix design and must be accounted
for when deciding the l/b ratio.
The highest recorded Gs value was 2.9 for ball-milled CBA at a
“speed of 30e33” revolutions per minute (Khongpermgoson et al.,
2019), or for 8 h of continuous grinding followed by heat treatment
and another 12 h of grinding (Ibrahim et al., 2019). As compared to
the typical OPC’s SSA of 4,050 m2/kg, the highest reported SSA for
ground CBA was 7,799 m2/kg (Sanjua
n et al., 2019). The specifics of
grinding were not discussed. The lowest FM value of 1.4 was
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 5

Table 1
Physical characteristics of CBA from reported literature.

Country Facility/Industry Gs SSA (m2/kg) FM u (%) Reference(s)

Cyprus Nicosia Brick Factory Plant 1.4 e e e Aydin (2016)

Europe Unnamed Power Plant 2.0 e e e Luna et al. (2014)
Hong Kong Unnamed Power Plant 2.2 e 3.3 11.2 Zhang and Poon (2015)
India Panipat Thermal Power Station 1.9 e 1.6 e Aggarwal and Siddique (2014)
Neyveli Lignite Corporation e e 3.0 e Govindarajan et al. (2014)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 31.6 Singh and Siddique (2014a)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 31.6 Singh and Siddique (2014b)
Eklahare Thermal Power Plant 1.9 e 3.1 21.1 Kadam and Patil (2015)
Panipat Thermal Power Station 1.9 e 1.6 e Siddique and Kunal (2015)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 31.5 Singh and Siddique (2015a)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 e Singh and Siddique (2015b)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 31.6 Singh et al. (2016)
Unnamed Power Plant 1.4 e 1.4 31.6 Singh and Siddique (2016)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 1.8 e e 9.6 Singh et al. (2017)
Budge Budge Thermal Power Plant 2.3 1620 1.9 e Ghosh et al. (2018)
Udupi Thermal Power Plant 2.1 e e 5.5 Goudar et al. (2019)
Neyveli Lignite Corporation 1.7 e 1.4 30.2 Jawahar et al. (2019)
National Thermal Power Corporation 1.9 600 2.4 8.1 Kirthika et al. (2019)
Hindalco Power Plant 2.5 e 2.1 8.5 Majhi and Nayak (2019)
Ropar Thermal Power Station 2.1 e 1.5 6.8 Singh et al. (2019b)
Indonesia Unnamed Power Plant 2.3 e e e Antoni et al. (2017)
Malaysia Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 2.6 e e e Abidin et al. (2014)
Sultan Azlan Shah (Manjung) Power Plant 2.6 316 2.9 1.0 A. H. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 1.9 e e e Hamzah et al. (2015)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant 2.4 e e e Latifi et al. (2015)
Kapar Thermal Power Station 2.1e2.7 e e e Naganathan et al. (2015)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 1.7 e e e Jamaluddin et al. (2016)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant 1.9 e 3.4 11.6 Rafieizonooz et al. (2016)
Unnamed Burner Mill Factory Sites 1.9 e e e Soofinajafi et al. (2016)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 1.7 e e 37.2 Hamzah et al. (2017)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant 1.9 e 3.4 11.6 Rafieizonooz et al. (2017)
Kapar Thermal Power Station e 963e1353 e e Burhanudin et al. (2018)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 1.8 1050 e 2.8 Hashemi et al. (2018)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 2.4 384 e e Mangi et al. (2018)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 2.2 e 2.6 25.2 Ong et al. (2018)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant e e 3.1 e Al-Hokabi and Doh (2019)
Sultan Azlan Shah (Manjung) Power Plant 2.9 316 e e Ibrahim et al. (2019)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant e 14180 e e Kusbiantoro et al. (2019)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 22.4e2.5 2235e464 e e Mangi et al. (2019a)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 2.4 384 e e Mangi et al. (2019b)
Kapar Thermal Power Station 2.4e2.5 384e464 e e Mangi et al. (2019c)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 2.4 384 e e Mangi et al. (2019d)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 2.5 384e464 e e Mangi et al. (2019e)
Mauritius FUEL thermoelectric Power Station 1.8 e 3.7 26.0 Cadersa and Auckburally (2014)
Unnamed Power Plant 1.8 e e 14.8 Cadersa et al. (2014)
Niger Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 2.2 e 2.7 20.2 Baite et al. (2016)
Sonichar Plant 2.2 e e e Vinai et al. (2017)
South Korea Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.9 e 5.6 4.1 Ahn et al. (2016)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.9e2.0 2.3e3.8 8.7e10.8 Kim et al. (2014)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.8 e 2.1 5.4 Kim (2015)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.9 e e e Jang et al. (2016)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.9e2.0 e 2.3e3.8 10.8 Kim and Lee (2016)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 2.1 e 3.1 10.8 Kim et al. (2016)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 1.7 e e e Kim et al. (2017)
Unnamed Power Plant 2.5 e e e Pyo et al. (2019)
Dangjin Coal-Fired Power Plant 0.8 e e 25.7e25.8 Yoon et al. (2019)
Spain ENDESA-Carboneras Power Plant e 4050 e e Argiz et al. (2018a)
EON-Puente Nuevo Power Plant 2.7 809 e e Argiz et al. (2018b)
Sri Lanka Norochcholai Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant 1.9 e e e Hansika and Nanayakkara (2019)
Taiwan Unnamed Bottom Ash Recycling Firm 1.8e2.4 e 2.6e2.8 e Wu et al. (2016)
Thailand Mae Moh Power Plant 2.1 e 2.1 6.8 Onprom et al. (2015)
Mae Moh Power Plant 2.1 e e e Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017)
Mae Moh Power Plant 1.8 e 3.0 15.5 Torkittikul et al. (2017)
Mae Moh Power Plant 2.3 e 2.1 e Abdulmatin et al. (2018)
Mae Moh Power Plant 2.2 e e 2.8 Ngohpok et al. (2018)
Unnamed Power Plant 2.9 e e e Khongpermgoson et al. (2019)
Turkey €mer Power Plant
Seyito 2.2 93 e e Topçu et al. (2014)
USA Coleto Creek Power Plant 2.8 859e1102 e e Oruji et al. (2017)
Coleto Creek Power Plant 2.8 859 e e Brake et al. (2018)
Others Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 2.1e2.5 3463e7799 1.5 6.8 Pyo and Kim (2017), Argiz et al. (2017),
Sanju
an et al. (2019), (Singh et al., 2019a)

Gs ¼ Specific gravity.
SSA ¼ Specific surface area.
FM ¼ Fineness modulus.
u ¼ Moisture absorption.
6 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
reported by Singh and Siddique for all their studies (2014a, 2014b,
2015a, 2015b, 2016) as well as by Singh et al. (2015). Hamzah et al.
(2017) reported CBA with the highest u rate at 37.2%. Similarly,
Singh and Siddique (2016) and Singh et al. (2015) indicated a u rate
of 31.6%. The high u rate could be caused by coal boiler in-
efficiencies that leave behind water-trapping carbon and
impurities.
A longer grinding period or more sophisticated grinding
equipment can drastically increase the SSA of CBA for use as a
cement replacement or in geopolymer binder. However, the desired
level of grinding would increase the energy needed and the asso-
ciated cost. Fine grinding requires dedicated machinery and pro-
cessing. For example, the high energy vibratory ball mill used by
Oruji et al. (2017) is expensive and can be difficult to operate or
transport at work sites without careful maintenance. Treatment of
raw CBA incurs high power demands to operate the equipment and
treat CBA. However, this can be offset by the higher yield and uti-
lization potential of the treated CBA.
3.3. Chemical composition
The chemical composition of CBA (especially the silica, alumina,
and ferric oxide contents) vary depending on the source of coal,
operating conditions and processing. The silica content of CBA can
greatly influence the formation of CeSeH gels in cement and
concrete after hydration. Carbon content in CBA originates from
inefficient combustion in boilers or incinerators. Heavy metal
compounds are typically present in CBA at low levels, depending on
the source. However, it is still necessary to test CBA used in con-
struction for heavy metal ion leaching to minimize subsequent
groundwater contamination (Kadir et al., 2016).
Silica, alumina and ferric oxide constitute the main chemical
components in calcined natural pozzolans intended for use in
concrete as per ASTM requirements (ASTM C618-17a, 2017). For
comparison, class “F” ash requires a minimum of 70 wt% in total for
these three compounds and a maximum of 6e12% LOI content
(ASTM C618-17a, 2017). Table 2 summarizes the reported silica,
alumina, ferric oxide, and LOI content in CBA from the cited refer-
ences. Review articles such as Sadon et al. (2017) or Kim and Lee
(2015) provided the differences in the chemical composition of
CBA, but did not follow a sorting scheme based on country of origin
(source) to identify any geographical or geological trends and
ranges.
The difference in the shown chemical composition is evident
even for batches produced from the same plant. For example, CBA
from the Tanjung Bin Power Plant in Malaysia was obtained in 2015,
2016 and 2017, with each batch of CBA displaying different com-
positions. Similarly, 2014 and 2015 batches of CBA from the Guru
Hargobind Thermal Power Plant in India and the 2014e2017
batches from the Seocheon Thermal Power Plant in Korea, and the
2017 and 2018 batches from the Mae Moh Power Plant in Thailand
all have varying silica, alumina, ferric oxide, and LOI levels. This
chemical composition volatility of CBA is observed even for the
same power generating facility. A research group might also use the
same CBA batch throughout several studies, reporting the same
characteristics for all the related studies. However, despite the lack
of consistency in the chemical composition, all CBA characterized in
these studies can generally fall under class “F” or class “C” cate-
gories according to ASTM C618-17a (2017).
A summary of the average silica, alumina and ferric oxide levels
in CBA from different countries is depicted in Fig. 3 for comparison.
The highest reported levels for the sum of these three compounds
(total of 90.7%) are from Cyprus (Aydin, 2016). Indonesia produces
CBA with the lowest reported levels (total of 62.8%) (Antoni et al.,
2017). In comparison to Cyprus, the Americas and the Asian
countries have lower amounts of silica, alumina, and ferric oxide.
Brazil and China have the highest pozzolanic content with a total of
89% and 90.7%, respectively (Dong et al., 2019; Santa et al., 2017). In
view of the high variability in chemical composition and the vari-
ation in the treatment of CBA, it is expected that the produced
concrete, mortars or pastes will exhibit disparities in their pozzo-
lanic potential.
4. Treatment of CBA
Raw CBA is typically unsuitable for direct use in concrete with
inherent characteristics that fall short of the desirable mechanical
performance in construction. Treatment performed to enhance the
innate properties is either physical processing or inclusion of
chemical additives that alter the attributes of the constituent ma-
terial. Common physical treatments include sieving, grinding,
soaking and burning. On the other hand, chemical treatments
typically involve introducing alkali activators and other chemical
additives to cement or concrete mixes to improve the pozzolanic
reaction of CBA. Physical and chemical treatments affect CBA in
different ways; therefore, many studies utilize a combination of
both forms of treatment to achieve the desired properties. The
frequency of the common forms of treatment referenced in the
reviewed studies are simplistically depicted in a radar chart (Fig. 4).
Sieving is the physical separation of CBA into different sizes using
specific sieves, with mesh sizes ranging from 75 mm to 2 mm, and
grinding is the mechanical crushing of CBA. Drying is defined as the
oven heating of raw CBA up to 110  C while burning refers to sub-
jecting CBA to temperatures between 200 and 1000  C in a muffle
furnace. Soaking refers to submerging CBA in water for at least 24 h,
with the longest period of saturation in the reviewed studies being
several weeks (Jang et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2014; Wyrzykowski
et al., 2016).
One factor that affects the form of treatment is the purpose and
expectations of the studies. For example, in the studies utilizing
CBA as a source of silica and alumina in geopolymer concrete, alkali
activators were frequently used to increase the pozzolanic potential
(Nguyen et al., 2018; Topçu et al., 2014). For grinding, most of the
reviewed studies used a laboratory ball mill and occasionally a Los
Angeles abrasion machine to pulverize CBA for 30 min to several
hours (Oruji et al., 2017). Due to the differences in equipment
configuration and the variability in the abrasion resistance of CBA
used as well as post-grinding sieving, the achieved fineness varies
(refer to Table 1). The common treatments and additives used for
CBA utilization are described in Table 3. The physical treatments are
described in sequence. Chemical treatments are not included in the
sequence because they are generally performed during the mixing
process.
Sieving is frequently carried out alongside grinding as a method
to maximize fineness. CBA could undergo multiple rounds of
grinding to increase SSA to desirable levels. Burning and saturation
of CBA are commonly used methods to remove impurities from
CBA, such as unburnt carbon and water-soluble chlorides (Jang
et al., 2016). Both impurities can affect the mixing of CBA con-
crete, mortar, and cement paste. Carbon absorbs water from the
mix and subsequently reduces workability. The presence of chlo-
rides in concrete causes early corrosion of rebar.
Alkali activators are chemicals that react with the aluminosili-
cate compounds in CBA to form geopolymeric structures (Santa
et al., 2017). These geopolymeric structures form a binder similar
to cement. There are several types of geopolymer alkali activators.
The most commonly used activators are sodium silicate, sodium
hydroxide, potassium silicate, calcium carbonate, and water-glass
solutions. Alkali activators are typically prepared one day before
mixing with the other constituents of the mortar or concrete.
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 7

Table 2
Chemical characteristics of CBA from reported literature sorted by country of origin.

Country Facility/Industry SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) Fe2O3 (%) LOI (%) Reference(s)

Australia Port Augusta Power Plant 54.0 25.0 4.0 2.0 Xie and Ozbakkaloglu (2015)
Brazil Unnamed Thermoelectric Plant 57.0 24.0 8.0 5.0 Santa et al. (2017)
China Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 59.9 22.9 7.9 4.0 Dong et al. (2019)
Cyprus Nicosia Brick Factory Plant 55.1 28.1 8.3 3.9 Aydin (2016)
Europe Unnamed Coal Combustion Facility 64.5 15.9 7.8 11.9 Luna et al. (2014)
Hong Kong Unnamed Power Generation Plant 52.1 18.3 12.0 4.1 Zhang and Poon (2015)
India Panipat Thermal Power Station 57.8 21.6 8.6 5.8 Aggarwal and Siddique (2014); Siddique and Kunal (2015)
Neyveli Lignite Corporation 48.7 29.2 4.3 e Govindarajan et al. (2014)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 56.4 29.2 8.4 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2016, 2015a, 2014a)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 47.5 20.7 6.0 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2014b)
Guru Hargobind Thermal Power Plant 60.3 19.5 11.8 1.0 Singh et al. (2016); Singh and Siddique (2015b)
Tata Power Jojobera Plant 49.2 16.6 3.53 26.1 Ghosh et al. (2019)
Udupi Thermal Power Plant 79.2 14.8 2.9 1.6 Goudar et al. (2019)
National Thermal Power Corporation 45.4 18.1 19.9 e Kirthika et al. (2019)
Hindalco Power Plant 60.3 19.5 11.8 e Majhi and Nayak (2019)
Ropar Thermal Power Station 66.9 17.7 6.5 2.7 Singh et al. (2019)
Indonesia Unnamed Power Plant 34.4 10.0 18.4 3.5 Antoni et al. (2017)
Italy ENEL (Coal-Fired Power Plant Federico II) 46.2 27.0 10.6 e Haq et al. (2014)
Malaysia Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 68.9 18.7 6.5 2.7 Abidin et al. (2014); Hamzah et al. (2017, 2015);
M. H. W. Ibrahim et al. (2015); Jamaluddin et al. (2016)
Sultan Azlan Shah (Manjung) Power Plant 31.1 9.3 12.4 e A. H. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant 46.6 23.6 12.4 e Latifi et al. (2015)
Kapar Thermal Power Station 56.0 26.7 5.8 4.6 Naganathan et al. (2015)
Unnamed Burner Mill Factory Sites 56.0 26.7 5.8 4.6 Soofinajafi et al. (2016)
Tanjung Bin Power Plant 45.3 18.1 19.8 0.4 Rafieizonooz et al. (2017, 2016)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 50.5 27.6 10.9 1.1 Hashemi et al. (2018)
Sultan Azlan Shah (Manjung) Power Plant 34.1 9.3 12.4 1.9 Ibrahim et al. (2019)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 42.6 15.4 17.9 e Kusbiantoro et al. (2019)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 53.8 18.1 8.7 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019e, 2019c, 2018)
Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Power Station 52.5 17.7 8.3 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019d, 2019b, 2019a)
Sultan Azlan Shah (Manjung) Power Plant 38.1 10.9 20.9 19.5 Ng et al. (2018)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 49.4 15.2 7.0 e Ong et al. (2018)
Mauritius FUEL Thermoelectric Power Station e e e 11.0 Cadersa and Auckburally (2014)
Niger Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 62.3 27.2 3.6 e Baite et al. (2016)
Sonichar Plant 55.0e65.0 20.0e35.0 <1.0 e Vinai et al. (2017)
South Korea Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 28.0e44.2 31.3e31.5 8.3e8.9 0.4 Kim et al. (2014)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 45.7 25.3 6.9 12.6 Kim (2015)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 50.1 26.9 10.8 e Kim et al. (2015)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 49.9 29.3 10.5 e Ahn et al. (2016); Kim et al. (2017)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 44.2 31.5 8.0 e Jang et al. (2016)
Seocheon Thermal Power Plant 44.2e48.0 31.3e31.5 8.3e8.9 0.4 Kim and Lee (2016)
Yeongheung Power Plant 50.7 20.3 11.0 2.3 Hong and Kim (2019)
Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 48.0 20.1 8.8 8.1 Pyo et al. (2019)
Dangjin Coal-Fired Power Plant 51.5e54.0 23.4e23.9 5.8e8.9 e Yoon et al. (2019)
Spain ENDESA-Carboneras Power Plant 50.0 27.0 8.3 1.9 Mene
ndez et al. (2014)
ENDESA-Carboneras Power Plant 52.2 27.5 6.0 1.8 Argiz et al. (2018)
ENDESA-Carboneras Power Plant 48.1 25.6 5.9 1.9 Mene
ndez et al. (2019)
Sri Lanka Lakvijaya Power Station 44.7 23.8 4.2 15.2 Dassanayake and Nanayakkara (2018)
Thailand Mae Moh Power Plant 46.0 22.3 10.6 4.0 Onprom et al. (2015)
SCG Paper Business Boilers 47.9e57.6 22.6e22.8 6.9e7.9 1.1e12.2 Wyrzykowski et al. (2016)
Mae Moh Power Plant 26.2 15.8 14.2 7.7 Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017)
Mae Moh Power Plant 36.8 18.3 15.5 2.0 Torkittikul et al. (2017)
Mae Moh Power Plant 35.6 19.6 14.9 3.6 Abdulmatin et al. (2018); Khongpermgoson et al. (2019)
Turkey Seyito€ mer Power Plant 51.5 18.8 9.6 10.9 Topçu et al. (2014)
USA Coleto Creek Power Plant 58.7 20.1 6.2 0.8 Brake et al. (2018); Oruji et al. (2017)
Illinois City Water, Light, and Power (CWLP) 50.8 12.4 22.7 e Paija et al. (2020)
Vietnam Tan Rai Bauxite Plant 52.6 22.8 9.9 8.6 Kalaw et al. (2015)
Tan Rai Thermal Power Plant 52.6 20.9 9.1 8.6 Nguyen et al. (2018, 2017)
Others Unnamed Coal-Fired Power Plant 40.0e55.6 15.0e28.8 8.0e9.0 1.6e8.1 Anghelescu et al. (2018); Argiz et al., (2017);
Donatello et al. (2014); Mene
ndez et al. (2020);
Pyo and Kim (2017); Sanjua
n et al. (2019)

Different concentrations are used, depending on the purpose of the
study. Heat-curing of CBA concrete for the first few days after
casting is occasionally used in conjunction with alkali activators,
which increase the rate of chemical reactions through “molecular
thermal agitation” (Haq et al., 2014; Topçu et al., 2014).
Approximately one third of the reviewed studies in Table 3
investigated physical treatments in lieu of chemical treatments. A
possible reason for this is the feasibility of physical over chemical
treatments as the latter often require the use of chemical agents,
more skilled labor, specialized equipment, and dedicated storage in
sterile environments. Furthermore, certain additives can produce
high levels of heat due to its exothermic reactions. These conditions
suggest a lower cost of physical treatments and more acceptance in
the construction industry. However, if the use of CBA is better
received by the industry and general public, the cost of specialized
chemicals and other associated aspects of production are expected
to decrease.
Water vapor in the air varies with the ambient temperature,
8 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Fig. 3. Chemical composition of CBA (refer to Table 2 for details).
which affects the moisture levels in raw CBA. Saturation or burning
can thus allow for better control of the moisture levels in CBA.
However, volatile chemical additives can change states of matter
through sublimation or evaporation at room temperature. Their
reactivity could subsequently drop to a point that they become
difficult to utilize. In addition, careful storage of the chemicals must
be done to ensure flammable and corrosive chemicals do not react
and cause any danger to the users. Thirdly, cast in-situ allows
physical treatments of CBA on-site, but chemical treatment require
regulated procedures and meticulous preparations in a controlled
environment. Issues can still occur even though chemical treat-
ments are performed in accordance with procedural requirements.
For instance, Santa et al. (2017) reported that the geopolymer
cement paste made with 15M of sodium hydroxide and sodium
silicate took 40 days to set when curing at room temperature.
Therefore, a standardized investigation of the optimum concen-
tration for additives should be carried out to gauge the interaction
between CBA source and the intended chemical treatment. The
studies currently available on this aspect are limited for CBA utili-
zation as a sand or OPC substitute, indicative of a lack of interest
and incentive to explore this relationship.
Impregnation of CBA with sulfuric acid before heat application for
1e3 h resulted in removal of the impurities in CBA, increasing the
total amount of pozzolanic components available (Kusbiantoro et al.,
2019). This could be a commercially ambitious endeavor due to the
cost of chemicals, the intricacy of the impregnation process and the
need of heating and filtration of CBA after the treatment. However,
this can be mitigated by performing this process in a manner similar
to commonly available/conducted commercial processes. For
example, the chemical absorption process used in power plants in-
volves the carbon dioxide in the flue gas being sent through an
absorber to be bonded with an amine solution (Wang et al., 2017).
The carbon dioxide-amine solution mixture is then transported to
another steam turbine to be separated. In the steam turbine, the
carbon dioxide is condensed for disposal while the amine solution is
sent back to the absorber to be reused (Wang et al., 2017). Similarly,
CBA and sulfuric acid could be combined before collection at an
absorber for heating and removal of the sulfuric acid-impurity so-
lution (Kusbiantoro et al., 2019). Following that, a stripping process
would be applied to the sulfuric acid to allow its reuse.
Superplasticizer is a relatively stable chemical concrete additive
that ensures good workability and improves mechanical properties,
such as compressive strength. The use of superplasticizer could be
instrumental for making CBA concrete and mortars due to the high
water absorption (refer to Table 1) and lower pozzolanic capability
of CBA in comparison with OPC and FA. For example, super-
plasticizer was added to 50% CBA concrete because the mixing
water was sufficient to form a slurry (Ong et al., 2018). The most
common type of superplasticizer used is polycarboxylate ether-
based superplasticizer, although polycarboxylic acid and polymer-
based superplasticizers were also utilized. Investigation of the ef-
fect of the superplasticizer type (Table 3) on the workability and
mechanical properties of CBA concrete could enhance our under-
standing of their role and limitations. The combination of super-
plasticizer with other additives can further improve the
performance of CBA concrete and mortars, although the results are
dependent on CBA properties, treatment and mixing processes.
Jawahar et al. (2019) used chemical accelerators and super-
plasticizers in the mix, before curing the specimens using CERA
POLYCURE-R (“an acrylic resin based curing compound”) instead of
water (Cera-Chem Private Limited, 2017). They obtained a
maximum compressive strength of 30.5 MPa with 20% CBA content
by volume. On the other hand, Hamzah et al. (2017) used only a
polymer-based superplasticizer and obtained a compressive
strength of 50.1 MPa with a similar substitution of CBA.
5. Building with CBA
The viability of CBA as a substitute for building materials has
been researched since the 1970s. In recent years, the most
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Fig. 4. Common CBA treatments (number of studies shown in parentheses).
common CBA utilizations are in the form of fine aggregate
replacement, cement replacement, and to a lesser extent as a
source of silica and alumina in geopolymer concrete. Fig. 5 shows
the distribution of common tests performed on CBA derived
specimens reported in the reviewed studies. The 28-day
compressive strength of CBA-based concrete and mortar were
compiled from recent literature and compared to further explore
its potential as a building material. The tests and characteristics
of cementitious products made with CBA are discussed
accordingly.
5.1. Compressive strength
The compressive strength of CBA concrete, mortar and paste
samples are a key indicator of the material performance. There is
currently no consensus on the class of concrete strength. The
strength grade, such as “normal” or “ultra-high”, in this review are
based on several sources. Normal and high strength concrete have
compressive strengths of 20e55 MPa and 55e120 MPa, respec-
tively, as defined by the Australian Standard (AS 1379-2007) and
American Concrete Institute (American Concrete Institute, 2019).
The Portland Cement Association (Portland Cement Association,
2018) defines ultra-high concrete to have a compressive strength
of 120 MPa and above. Concrete with a compressive strength below
20 MPa are considered as low strength concrete (LSC) in this
review.
5.1.1. CBA as sand replacement
For the studies on CBA as a fine aggregate replacement, the
cement content was kept constant in the concrete or mortar mixes.
Table 4 displays the maximum and minimum strengths for concrete
and mortar utilizing CBA as a fine aggregate replacement. In some
references it is unclear whether the aggregate replacement is based
9
on weight or volume. The studies that reported this information,
however, have provided some insights into the effects of CBA
aggregate replacement (of sand) on the compressive strength. The
respective carbon content (expressed as LOI) in CBA is shown in
Table 4. However, there is no discernible correlation between LOI
and the compressive strength.
The noted variability in compressive strength at the same CBA
content can be attributed to the inclusion of chemicals or additives.
Pyo and Kim (2017) studied CBA effects on the properties of an
ultra-high strength concrete, with CBA used as a filler. In their
study, the strongest concrete mix (designated FB-1) contained silica
fume and fine blast furnace slag, while the samples with the lowest
strength (designated SB-1 and SB-N) had no additives and included
silica fume, respectively. The highest reported compressive
strength of concrete utilizing CBA as a sand replacement (163 MPa)
was achieved using steel fibers (Pyo et al., 2019). The mix design
used by Aminudin et al. (2015) contained additives such as 1.5 wt%
aluminum powder and 1.5 wt% superplasticizer, but resulted in one
of the lowest reported compressive strengths. These findings sug-
gest that the high efficacy of using additives in the form of fibers or
fillers rather than chemicals to enhance the strength of CBA
concrete.
Several studies adopted full sand replacement (100%) with CBA
in concrete by mass (Rafieizonooz et al., 2016; Singh and Siddique,
2016, 2014a), yet they achieved compressive strengths that vary
from 24 MPa to 35 MPa. It is challenging to perform holistic com-
parisons with other studies due to the inconsistencies in the basis
of the reported replacement (e.g. volume, mass, and weight per-
centage) and variability of the chemical composition of CBA used.
However, the deciding factor appears to be the pozzolanic
composition and the treatment type performed on CBA. For
example, Rafieizonooz et al. (2016) utilized CBA with a total
pozzolanic composition (SiO2 and Al2O3) of 63.4%. The CBA was
10 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752

Table 3
Treatments of CBA reported in the reviewed studies.

Use Physical Chemical Treatment l/b ratio Reference

Treatment*

AS SAND IV, I Superplasticizer 0.4 Abidin et al. (2014)

F
REPLACEMENT e Superplasticizer 0.50 Aggarwal and Siddique (2014)
e0.68
I, IV e 0.54 Cadersa and Auckburally (2014)
I e 0.78 Cadersa et al. (2014)
II (two weeks) Superplasticizer E 0.3 Kim et al. (2014)
I Alkali activatorsA,B 0.4 Luna et al. (2014)
IV e 0.45 Singh and Siddique (2014a)
IV e 0.45 Singh and Siddique (2014b)
IV, I Superplasticizer (naphthalene sulfonate) and admixtures (lime and 0.30 Aminudin et al. (2015)
aluminum powder) e0.45
e Superplasticizer E and silica fume admixture 0.35 Balasubramaniam and Thirugnanam
(2015)
IV, I SuperplasticizerG 0.35 Hamzah et al. (2015)
e0.45
I Superplasticizer (Emceplast BV) 0.45 Kadam and Patil (2015)
I Alkali activatorsB,D 0.3e0.5 Kim et al. (2015)
IV, I Superplasticizer G 0.35 M. H. W. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
e0.45
I Organic-based foaming agent e Onprom et al. (2015)
e SuperplasticizerF 0.41 Siddique and Kunal (2015)
e0.44
I, IV e 0.45 Singh and Siddique (2015a)
IV e 0.5 Singh and Siddique (2015b)
II (24 h) Superplasticizer G 0.39 Zhang and Poon (2015)
IV e 0.635 Ahn et al. (2016)
I e 0.5 Baite et al. (2016)
I SuperplasticizerG 0.35 Hamzah et al. (2016)
e0.45
e SuperplasticizerG 0.35 Jamaluddin et al. (2016)
e0.45
II (a few weeks), e 0.5 Jang et al. (2016)
IV
E
I, cold-bonded Superplasticizer 0.3 Kim et al. (2016)
I e 0.55 Rafieizonooz et al. (2016)
e Superplasticizer 0.45 Singh and Siddique (2016)
e0.50
IV e e Singh et al. (2016)
G
IV Superplasticizer 0.31 Soofinajafi et al. (2016)
e0.35
III, I e 0.40 Wu et al. (2016)
e0.55
II (24 h) Superplasticizer 0.33 Wyrzykowski et al. (2016)
e0.35
e Superplasticizer e Abidin et al. (2017)
I e 0.3e2.4 Antoni et al. (2017)
e SuperplasticizerG 0.4 Hamzah et al. (2017)
I e 0.4 Kim et al. (2017)
F
III Superplasticizer 0.22 Pyo and Kim (2017)
I e 0.45 Rafieizonooz et al. (2017)
IV, I e e Torkittikul et al. (2017)
F
IV, I Superplasticizer 0.20 Hashemi et al. (2018)
e0.55
E
I, II (7 days) Superplasticizer 0.3 Kim and Lee (2018)
e Superplasticizer 0.3 Ngohpok et al. (2018)
I SuperplasticizerF (CBA50 mix only) e Ong et al. (2018)
III Superplasticizer e Pyo et al. (2018)
III, I e e Al-Hokabi and Doh (2019)
III, I e e Anggono et al. (2019)
IV, I Alkali activatorsA,B 0.34 Ghosh et al. (2019)
e SuperplasticizerF, additive (hooked-end steel fibers) 0.45 Goudar et al. (2019)
e Superplasticizer (polycarboxylate phosphonate) 0.43 Hansika and Nanayakkara (2019)
e0.64
e SuperplasticizerF, chemical accelerators (calcium nitrate and 0.55 Jawahar et al. (2019)
Triethanolamine)
e SuperplasticizerF e Kirthika et al. (2019)
III SuperplasticizerF, additive (steel fiber) e Pyo et al. (2019)
e SuperplasticizerF e Singh et al. (2019b)
III e 0.3e0.5 Yoon et al. (2019)
AS CEMENT III Alkali activator (anhydrous sodium sulfate salt), additives (water-reducing) 0.4 Donatello et al. (2014)
REPLACEMENT IV, I, III Superplasticizer E 0.34 Kim (2015)
IV, III, I Admixture (lime) 0.45 Aydin (2016)
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 11

Table 3 (continued )

Use Physical Chemical Treatment l/b ratio Reference

Treatment*

III Superplasticizer 0.55 Oruji et al. (2017)

III e 0.5 Argiz et al. (2018a)
III Superplasticizer F 0.4 Argiz et al. (2018b)
III SuperplasticizerF 0.40 Brake et al. (2018)
e0.42
III e 0.5 Mene
ndez et al. (2014)
IV, I, III, V, III e 0.54 A. H. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
e0.58
I, IV e e Latifi et al. (2015)
IV, I e e Naganathan et al. (2015)
III e e Kamal et al. (2016)
III e 0.45 Khan and Ganesh (2016)
III e 0.5 Argiz et al. (2017)
IV, I, III, I e 0.65 Abdulmatin et al. (2018)
e0.77
III e 0.5 Burhanudin et al. (2018)
IV, III, I, III e 0.5 Mangi et al. (2018)
IV, III, I e 0.5 Ng et al. (2018)
IV, I, III, V, III e 0.58 Ibrahim et al. (2019)
e0.64
IV, III, I e 0.5 Kamal et al. (2019)
IV, III, I SuperplasticizerF 0.3e0.5 Khongpermgoson et al. (2019)
III Impregnation of CBA with sulfuric acid e Kusbiantoro et al. (2019)
IV, III, I, III e 0.5 Mangi et al. (2019e)
IV, III e e Mangi et al. (2019b)
IV, III, I, III e 0.5 Mangi et al. (2019c)
IV, III, I, III e e Mangi et al. (2019a)
IV, III, I, III e 0.5 Mangi et al. (2019d)
III e e Sanjua
n et al. (2019)
III e 0.45 Mene
ndez et al. (2020)
IN GEOPOLYMER III Alkali activatorsA,B 0.027 Haq et al. (2014)
III Alkali activatorsA,B e Topçu et al. (2014)
III, IV, I Alkali activatorA,D e Kalaw et al. (2015)
IV Alkali activatorsA,B 0.25 Xie and Ozbakkaloglu (2015)
e1.1
IV, III, I Alkali activatorsA,B,C e Santa et al. (2017)
III, I Alkali activatorA, additive (calcium carbide residue) 0.7 Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017)
IV, III, I Alkali activatorsD 0e0.4 Nguyen et al. (2017)
III, I, V Alkali activatorsA,B,C 0.35 Dassanayake and Nanayakkara (2018)
e0.55
IV, III, I Alkali activatorsD e Nguyen et al. (2018)
III, IV Alkali activatorsA,B e Dong et al. (2019)
III, I Alkali activatorB e Hong and Kim (2019)
III Alkali activatorA,B 0.35 Paija et al. (2020)

*Listed in sequential order.

I: Sieved, II: Soaked, III: Ground, IV: Dried, V: Burnt.
A
Sodium silicate.
B
Sodium hydroxide.
C
Potassium hydroxide.
D
Water-glass solution.
E
Polycarboxylic acid-based.
F
Polycarboxylate ether-based
G
Polymer-based.

only sieved in this study. The achieved compressive strength was
merely 24 MPa. Higher pozzolanic contents of 68.3% (Singh and
Siddique, 2014b) and 85.6% (Singh and Siddique, 2016), allowed
for higher compressive strengths (35 MPa and 28 MPa, respec-
tively). The addition of superplasticizer increased the workability of
the samples made by Singh and Siddique (2016) as compared to
those with no additives (Singh and Siddique, 2014b).
A number of related factors can appreciably influence the
compressive strength of concrete and mortar utilizing CBA as a
sand replacement. Besides the FM, the presence of the super-
plasticizer and l/b variation, LOI content, pozzolanic content, type
of treatment, and SSA can cause significant changes to the me-
chanical properties of CBA concrete and mortar.
5.1.2. CBA as cement replacement
Substitutes to OPC are widely studied, but the investigation of
CBA as a cementitious substitute began four decades ago (Kohno
and Komatsu, 1986). The construction industry replaces cement
with raw FA without the need for further processing. In contrast,
CBA needs to be ground to an appropriate fineness to be used as a
cement replacement to attain similar SSA values and reactivity
rates as FA. This increases the initial production cost due to the
need for grinding equipment, additional quality control re-
quirements and incorporation of the preparation into the workflow
processes. However, optimization of CBA treatments can provide an
increase in reactivity, which will reduce the amount of CBA needed
for each mix. The majority of the studies reviewed treated raw CBA
12 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Fig. 5. Breakdown of reported properties and tests performed on CBA (number of studies shown in parentheses).
by grinding. Oruji et al. (2017) ground CBA to a level where it can be
considered ultra-fine (858.6e1101.9 m2/kg).
Compressive strength in the studies utilizing CBA as a partial or
full cement replacement varies over a wide range. These studies
used CBA to replace OPC in cement paste, mortar and concrete. The
maximum and minimum compressive strengths for concrete,
mortar and cement paste involving CBA as a cement replacement
are summarized in Table 5. The highest reported compressive
strength produced is 72 MPa. Studies investigating the use of CBA as
a cement replacement in ultra-high strength concrete are very
scarce; only high strength mortars involving CBA are reported (Kim,
2015).
Of all the reviewed studies utilizing CBA as a cement replace-
ment, Kusbiantoro et al. (2019) reported the highest SSA at
14,180 m2/kg. However, the maximum obtained compressive
strength for 10% CBA substitution in mortar was merely 35 MPa. In
comparison, a 15% CBA mortar yielded a strength of 72 MPa,
although the SSA was not reported (Kim, 2015). Adjustments in mix
designs must be made to account for the differences in the Gs of
CBA and cement (Kim, 2015). Kusbiantoro et al. (2019) replaced
cement with CBA by volume rather than mass and accordingly
adjusted the mix designs. The treatments conducted on CBA by Kim
(2015) included drying, sieving, grinding and a polycarboxylic acid-
based superplasticizer. This approach improved the compressive
strength of CBA mortar more effectively as compared to the
grinding and sulfuric acid impregnation performed by Kusbiantoro
et al. (2019). It is rather challenging to establish a basis for com-
parison in the absence of the observed differences in CBA proper-
ties and its treatment specifics.
5.1.3. CBA-derived geopolymers
The studies investigating CBA-derived geopolymer commonly
involves mortar and cement paste as their final products instead of
concrete. It is likely that these studies attempt to minimize the
complexities caused by adding more constituent (e.g. fine and
coarse aggregates) to the samples. The compressive strength of the
geopolymers made utilizing CBA are summarized in Table 6. The
maximum compressive strengths achieved by these geopolymer
concrete and mortar are generally lower compared to concrete
utilizing CBA as a sand substitute (refer to Table 4). However, the
compressive strengths for concrete and mortar with CBA as a
cement replacement (Table 5) and CBA-derived geopolymers
(Table 6) show little difference comparatively. CBA-derived geo-
polymers and cement replacements are frequently combined with
other waste materials such as rice husk ash and calcium carbide
residue that are likely to improve the compressive strength
(Hanjitsuwan et al., 2017; Kalaw et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2018).
Although the studies investigating CBA-based geopolymers con-
ducted both physical and chemical treatments on CBA, their focus
was usually the effect of the alkali activator ratio or type on the
performance of the geopolymers. As such, it is difficult to draw
general conclusions on the effect of the physical treatments per-
formed on CBA to make geopolymer concrete, mortar and cement
paste.
The highest compressive strength of a CBA-derived geopolymer
made by Haq et al. (2014) was 55 MPa. The geopolymer was heat-
cured at 65  C after mixing for 48 h before demolding and addi-
tional heat-curing for 72 h (total 120 h). Hong and Kim (2019)
proposed heat-curing the CBA geopolymer paste using an oven
followed by cooling, then microwave heating for up to 7 min. The
additional irradiation removed moisture from the specimens and
increased the compressive strength. As the mass and moisture loss
increased, the compressive strength plateaued before gradually
decreasing (Hong and Kim, 2019). These two studies support the
positive impact of heat treatment on the compressive strength of
CBA geopolymer concrete and mortar. However, shrinkage due to
the induced thermal stress could jeopardize the sample integrity.
This effect requires further investigation. The microwave heating
time used by Hong and Kim (2019) allowed reaching the maximum
compressive strengths in merely 3e5 min. This approach is deemed
unsuitable for cast in-situ, but could be a viable option for masonry
or precast applications. However, this will require specialized
equipment for humidity control and heat-curing due to the size of
the precast concrete blocks.
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 13

Table 4
Compressive strength of concrete and mortar with CBA replacing sand.

Material Max Strength Min Strength Cement (kg/m3) LOI (%) Reference

fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%) fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%)

UHSC 163 23 101 23 e 8.1 Pyo et al. (2019) f

151 23 145 23 e 8.1 Pyo and Kim (2017) d
147 13 e e e e Pyo et al. (2018) f
HSC 72 50 64 50 566 0.4 Kim and Lee (2018) d
71 5 48 35 e 11.9 Luna et al. (2014)
70 13 69 25 52a 4.6 Soofinajafi et al. (2016) d
60 10 30 30 485e557 2.7 Hamzah et al. (2015) d
58 10 48 50 392 e Balasubramaniam and Thirugnanam (2015)
58 10 30 30 485e557 e Hamzah et al. (2016) d
56 10 16 30 518 2.7 Hamzah et al. (2017) d
NSC 54 15 38 30 561 e Abidin et al. (2014) d
50 30 44 50 365 e Ong et al. (2018) e
48 192b 9 256b 479 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2015a) e
48 25 34 100 e e Thandavamoorthy (2015)
47 10 22 100 438 e Kadam and Patil (2015) d
46 50 11 50 e 3.5 Antoni et al. (2017)
44 20 41 30 333.3 1.6 Goudar et al. (2019) d
42 25 32 100 450 4.1 Zhang and Poon (2015) d
39 20 15 80 417 11.0 Cadersa and Auckburally (2014) f
38 102b 34 256b 479 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2014a) e
38 40 35 100 479 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2014b) e
38 50 28 100 400e479 0.9 Singh and Siddique (2016) e
38 30 28 100 333 e Kirthika et al. (2019) d
36 60 33 10e90 6a e Maliki et al. (2017)
35 10 25 30 460 5.8 Siddique and Kunal (2015) d
34 115b 25 115b e 26.1 Ghosh et al. (2019)
34 100 16 100 374e395 e Yoon et al. (2019)
34 15 e e 561 e Abidin et al. (2017) d
33 10 20 100 e e Govindarajan et al. (2014)
32 30 27 100 400 1.0 Singh and Siddique (2015b)
32 15 21 30 350 5.8 Aggarwal and Siddique (2014) f
32 10 7 100 e 0.9 Ghosh et al. (2018) e
31 20 18 100 376 e Jawahar et al. (2019)
29 15 26 5 e e Muthusamy et al. (2018) f
29 10 25 40 287e358 e Singh et al. (2017) d
29 20 17 100 400e479 1.0 Singh et al. (2016) e
28 10 21 10 70c e Singh et al. (2019a)
28 10 21 10 301 2.7 Singh et al. (2019b) f
26 25 24 100 300 e Rafieizonooz et al. (2016) e
26 30 17 50 304e380 e Majhi and Nayak (2019)
21 15 17 20 445e474 e Ahn et al. (2016)
21 20 14 80 10a e Cadersa et al. (2014) f
21 100 4 100 0.54e0.56a 2.0 Wu et al. (2016)
LSC 14 40 14 60 323 e Ngohpok et al. (2018)
9 591b 5 644b 312e400 e Kim et al. (2017)
9 614b 3 662b 260e320 e Kim et al. (2015)
6 70 1 70 e e Anghelescu et al. (2018)
5 100 2 100 e e Aminudin et al. (2015)
5 25 1 100 e 4.0 Onprom et al. (2015) d
3 397c 1 430c 286e331a e Hansika and Nanayakkara (2019)
Mortar 82 375b 75 221b 899e975 1.1e12.2 Wyrzykowski et al. (2016)
78 25 52 50 e e Kim et al. (2016) d
49 10 33 100 562 2.0 Torkittikul et al. (2017) d
48 60 6e24 100 e 1.11 Hashemi et al. (2018)
27 50 25 25 e e Jang et al. (2016)c
a
kg.
b
kg/m3.
c
%.
d
CBA replaces sand by volume.
e
CBA replaces sand by mass.
f
CBA replaces sand by weight percentage.

5.1.4. Evaluation and comparisons
It is important to visualize the compressive strength distribution
of concrete utilizing CBA. In general, CBA concrete shows normal to
ultra-high compressive strength, while CBA mortar and cement
paste show low to normal strengths, regardless of utilization.
Further details can be observed in Tables 4e6. Clustering indicates
common values. The compressive strength of CBA concrete or
mortar as a sand replacement is mostly clustered within the normal
and low strength range. Fig. 6 depicts the compressive strengths
collected from all available studies on CBA. Four arbitrary strength
zones are shown: I-Low, II-Normal, III-High, IV-Ultra-high, defined
earlier. The ultra-high strength concrete (145e163 MPa) produced
by Pyo et al. (2019, 2018) and Pyo and Kim (2017) are incomparable
to other studies on CBA for a number of reasons. The ultra-strength
14 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752

Table 5
Compressive strength of material with CBA replacing cement.

Material Max Strength Min Strength LOI (%) Reference

fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%) Cement (kg/m3) fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%) Cement (kg/m3)

NSC 49 10 360 44 25 300 3.8 Argiz et al. (2018b) f

45 10 396 42 10 396 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019d)
44 44b 396 43 44b 396 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019b)
42 10 396 20 20 352 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019c) d
42 10 396 20 20 352 4.0 Mangi et al. (2019e)
39 10 100a 35 10 100a 0.8 Brake et al. (2018)
39 10 414 32 30 322 e Burhanudin et al. (2018) d
39 10 396 25 30 308 4.0 Mangi et al. (2018) d
f
30 70 e 16 47 e 3.6 Khongpermgoson et al. (2019)
21 20 350 16 30 307 e Khan and Ganesh (2016)
Mortar 72 15 85a 38 30 70a 12.6 Kim (2015) d
70 10 464 60 20 413 5.1
s and Faustino (2016) f
Bra
68 5 90a 33 18 65a 1.8 Argiz et al. (2017)
57 5 90a 29 18 65a 1.8 Argiz et al. (2018a)
55 10 90a 38 35 65a 1.9 Mene
ndez et al. (2014)
41 20 80a 20 20 80a 3.6 Abdulmatin et al. (2018) f
35 10 1919c 30 10 1919c e Kusbiantoro et al. (2019) e
34 10 90a 23 40 60a 19.5 Ng et al. (2018) d
33 10 90a 30 30 70a e Paija et al. (2020)
33 63b 562.5 19 178b 414.4 1.9 Ibrahim et al. (2019) e
33 63b 563 16 188b 438 e A. H. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
31 9 450 21 41 289 0.8 Oruji et al. (2017) e
Cement paste 15 70 25a 3 100 0 3.9 Aydin (2016) d
a
%.
b
kg/m3.
c
g.
d
CBA replaces cement by volume.
e
CBA replaces cement by mass.
f
CBA replaces cement by weight percentage.

can be attributed to the high density structure of the concrete made
using l/b ratio below 0.3 (Pyo and Kim, 2017) combined with the
addition of reinforcing steel fibers (Pyo et al., 2019). Their strengths
are appreciably higher than those obtained for concrete using CBA
as a sand replacement e almost two folds the highest value re-
ported in the high-strength range.
The strengths in the studies utilizing CBA as a cement substitute
cluster mostly in the normal (20e55 MPa) and low (less than
20 MPa) strength ranges. The geopolymer strengths, however, are
clustered below the high strength benchmark. This is partly due to
their use in the form of cement paste and mortars rather than
concrete, thus lacking the strength provided by fine and coarse ag-
gregates. As such, the results reported below should be merely used
as a guideline. These strengths provide a baseline for the research
progress utilizing CBA as a building substitute in various forms.
In view of the observed compressive strength of CBA in
cementitious matrices, several conclusions can be made. LOI and
chemical composition of CBA play marginal roles in deciding the
compressive strength achieved in concrete or mortars with CBA as a
sand replacement e unlike those reported for CBA as a cement
replacement or CBA-derived geopolymer. Utilization of CBA as a
sand replacement in concrete and mortar generally has little effect
on compressive strength. Reinforcing agents like steel fibers can be
added for this purpose. Lowering the l/b ratio by incorporating
superplasticizers further enhances the strength. For CBA as a
cement replacement, the ideal substitution range to achieve high
compressive strength is 10e20%. However, treatments such as
grinding, superplasticizers and alkali activators can increase the
compressive strength obtained for CBA replacements above 20%. In
CBA-based geopolymers, the combination of alkali activators and
heat treatments are a good option to increase the compressive
strength.

Table 6
Compressive strength of CBA-derived geopolymers.

Material Max Strength Min Strength LOI (%) Reference

fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%) fcu,28 (MPa) CBA (%)

Concrete 35 100 1 100 15.2 Dassanayake and Nanayakkara (2018)

8 25 <1 100 2.0 Xie and Ozbakkaloglu (2015)
Mortar 55 73 e e e Haq et al. (2014)
14 70 6 90 7.7 Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017)
Paste 42 100 35 100 2.3 Hong and Kim (2019) a
37 50 12 50 8.6 Nguyen et al. (2018)
30 100 18 100 4.0 Dong et al. (2019)
27 100 4 100 5.0 Santa et al. (2017)
26 100 10 100 10.9 Topçu et al. (2014)
23 100 19 10 e Paija et al. (2020)
19 39 3 86 8.6 Kalaw et al. (2015)
17 35 3 50 8.6 Nguyen et al. (2017)
a
Geopolymer samples have only been cured for 12e36 h, not 28 days.
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
5.2. Microstructure
The microstructure of raw CBA, CBA paste, CBA mortar, and CBA
concrete observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) al-
lows for the monitoring of the change in morphology from the raw
material to the hydrated form (CeSeH gel). Fig. 7 depicts six im-
ages: raw and ground CBA, 28-day OPC concrete and mortar
(control), and CBA concrete or mortar. These six images were taken
from several studies since no single study investigated all the forms
of raw or treated CBA as well as CBA concrete. In addition, although
38 of the reviewed studies performed SEM testing, the reviewed
studies mostly analyzed the mechanical properties of CBA concrete
rather than the microstructure.
Fig. 7a and b shows that the irregular morphology of CBA re-
mains the same before and after grinding. The smaller particle size
of ground CBA increases the SSA necessary to enhance pozzolanic
reactions. It is distinctly similar to the morphology of sand. The
differences in microstructure between Fig. 7c and d are a result of
the utilization of CBA to replace fine aggregate in concrete. Fig. 7c
has several types of gels and crystals, with a denser, smoother
structure while Fig. 7d shows a higher concentration of CeSeH gel
as well as rougher interfacial transition zones (ITZ). In Fig. 7d, the
concrete with 100% CBA as a sand replacement, higher porosity can
be observed than in the control concrete (Fig. 7c). However, the
study found that the porosity in these two concretes decreased as
the curing age increased (Singh and Siddique, 2015a). It has also
shown that the abrasion resistance of the 100% CBA concrete was
lower than the control concrete.
The control mortar in Fig. 7e shows a fairly homogenous
morphology in the whole structure, whereas CBA mortar in Fig. 7f
displays a flakier structure. The OPC appears to form a dense binder
in the control mortar in Fig. 7e, but the combination of CBA and OPC
as a binder in Fig. 7f produces a less cohesive microstructure. Both
CBA concrete and mortar achieved lower compressive strengths in
contrast with the controls, although the difference in strength
decreased over time (Singh and Siddique, 2015a). There appears to
also be a larger number of pores present in CBA mortar, which can
Fig. 6. Compressive strength for concrete, mortar, and cement paste utilizing CBA.
Strength: I-Low, II-Normal, III-High, IV-Ultra-high.
15
be attributed to a higher percentage of ITZs. The irregular shape of
the pores in Fig. 7f suggests that they could be capillary voids
caused by shrinkage, unlike the spherical voids caused by trapped
air (Mehta and Monteiro, 2006). Both control mortars in Fig. 7c and
e had ettringite crystal structures identified through Energy
Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS) analysis, which can cause cracking,
reducing the chemical resistance and durability of the concrete
(Singh and Siddique, 2015a).
For CBA-based geopolymer, the pozzolanic components in CBA
react with alkali activators to form the geopolymer. Fig. 8 depicts
the microstructures of geopolymers made with CBA in cement
paste, mortar, and concrete (Hanjitsuwan et al., 2017; Hong and
Kim, 2019; Santa et al., 2017; Xie and Ozbakkaloglu, 2015). Unlike
Fig. 7d and f (Ng et al., 2018; Singh and Siddique, 2015a), more
cohesive microstructures and fewer voids were observed in the
geopolymer (Fig. 8a, b, c, and d). The CBA-based geopolymer paste
produced by Hong and Kim (2019) had only 36 h of heat-curing and
5 min of microwave heating instead of 28 days of curing. Despite
that, its morphology was similar to the geopolymer paste, mortar
and concrete shown in Fig. 8a, b and c (Hanjitsuwan et al., 2017;
Nguyen et al., 2017; Xie and Ozbakkaloglu, 2015). Several conclu-
sions can be made from these comparisons. First, the formation of
geopolymers with ground CBA and alkali activators in the binder
results in a homogenous microstructure, even with the addition of
fine and coarse aggregates. Secondly, CBA binders have fewer
crystalline structures compared to OPC (Fig. 7c). The lack of crys-
talline structures appears to be the main contributor to the low
compressive strength obtained by the geopolymers in Fig. 8a, b and
c. Thirdly, heat treatment accelerates the geopolymerization reac-
tion and increases the compressive strength. . The geopolymers in
Fig. 8a, b and c were cured at ambient temperature and obtained
compressive strengths of 8e17 MPa. However, the heat-cured
geopolymer in Fig. 8d had a compressive strength of 35 MPa.
Further investigation of the effect of heat treatment on CBA-based
geopolymers is required to reinforce these conclusions.
The high temperatures produced by heat-curing or microwave
heating encourage the reaction between CBA and the alkali acti-
vators, boosting the geopolymerization reaction. This subsequently
increases the rate of formation of the Sodium-Aluminate-Silicate-
Hydrate gel (N-A-S-H gels). For this reason, CBA geopolymers that
undergo heat-treatment have higher or similar compressive
strengths to those cured at room temperature. However, the heat
application and the resulting mass loss due to shrinkage must be
carefully controlled. The geopolymer with 36 h of heat-curing and
3 min of microwaving achieved the highest compressive strength of
41.5 MPa, at a mass loss of 13e14% (Hong and Kim, 2019). The
geopolymerization reaction and thermal expansion of the binder
initially caused the microcracks to be filled. There seem to be a
critical point for thermal treatment beyond which the mass loss
increases, causing the microcracks to reform and the compressive
strength to drop (Hong and Kim, 2019).
The other reviewed papers pertaining to CBA-based geo-
polymers also observed micropores and microcracks forming
within the geopolymer matrix due to water evaporation. The geo-
polymerization reaction produces free water, adding to the other
types of water present in the geopolymer matrix (physically and
chemically bonded water) (Hong and Kim, 2019). It is possible that
this free water is replacing the moisture lost until the N-A-S-H gel
formation consumes the remaining (unreacted) CBA or alkali acti-
vators. Subsequently, the mass loss of the geopolymer specimens
continues to increase due to further drying shrinkage, until the
binder loses too much water and becomes brittle, forming more
microcracks within the matrix. Further exploration of the delicate
balance between thermal expansion and drying shrinkage is
necessary to limit the microcrack formation caused by heat-
16 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752

Fig. 7. SEM images of (a) raw CBA (adapted from Pyo and Kim et al., 2017), (b) ground CBA (adapted from Oruji et al., 2017), (c) control concrete (adapted from Singh and Siddique,
2015a), (d) concrete with 100% CBA as sand replacement (adapted from Singh and Siddique, 2015a), (e) control mortar (adapted from Oruji et al., 2017), (f) mortar with 30% ground
CBA as a cement replacement (adapted from Ng et al., 2018).

treatment in geopolymers.
5.3. Other Properties
There is a wide range of commonly tested attributes of CBA con-
crete and mortar. This includes setting time, workability, drying
shrinkage, water absorption, flexural and split tensile strengths,
thermal properties, chemical resistance, and leaching. These prop-
erties are integral components of the material characteristics and are,
thus, indispensable to better understand its performance in fresh and
hardened forms. They also highlight a number of critical aspects that
should be addressed when using CBA, such as the desired SSA of CBA
particles or the porosity of CBA concrete and mortar.
5.3.1. Fresh concrete
Setting Time e The setting time of CBA concrete and mortar
changes are dependent on the inclusion of substances such as lime,
calcium carbide residue and water-reducing additives (refer to
Table 3) in the mix design. The observed initial and final setting
times are shown in Table 7. Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017) reported a
wide range of setting times for geopolymer mortar, from a short
10e35 min to 620e675 min, depending on CBA content. The use of
calcium promoters, such as calcium carbide residue and OPC, was
suggested as the main reason for the faster setting (Hanjitsuwan
et al., 2017). The authors believe that the addition of alkali activa-
tors in the geopolymer mortar is possibly responsible for increasing
the geopolymerization reaction rate and caused the mortar to set
faster. On the other hand, very long initial and final setting times of
439e712 and 619e1286 min, respectively, were reported for ultra-
high strength concrete (Pyo and Kim, 2017). The SB-N mix with
lower amounts of superplasticizer had lower setting times, while
the FB-1 mix with fine blast furnace slag replacing silica fume had
the longest setting times (Pyo and Kim, 2017). With lower super-
plasticizer amounts, the SB-N mix had reduced workability
compared to the other mixes and was able to set faster. The
increased SSA of the blast furnace slag enhanced the chemical re-
actions and subsequently lengthened the setting time.
Both Oruji et al. (2017) and Argiz et al. (2017) had mortar sam-
ples with CBA replacing cement and produced similar initial setting
times. However, the final setting time reported by Argiz et al. (2017)
is significantly higher than that of Oruji et al. (2017). Although the
presence of superplasticizer might contribute to this difference, the
authors of these two studies believe that the difference in SSA of
CBA utilized in these two studies is the main factor. For instance,
Oruji et al. (2017) and Argiz et al. (2017) reported Blaine fineness
values of 858.6e1101.9 and 3463 m2/kg, respectively. The higher
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Fig. 8. SEM images of geopolymer (a) cement paste (adapted from Santa et al., 2017), (b) mortar (adapted from Hanjitsuwan et al., 2017), (c) concrete (adapted from Xie and
Ozbakkaloglu, 2015), and (d) geopolymer paste heat-cured for 36 h and microwave heated for 5 min (adapted from Hong and Kim, 2019).
SSA reported by Argiz et al. (2017) allows for more complete re-
actions and delays the final setting.
Workability e Only one-third of the reviewed studies on CBA
reported the workability of the produced concrete or mortar. It
should be noted that CBA in these studies was utilized in various
ways. The workability was evaluated using different standards. For
example, M.H.W. Ibrahim et al. (2015) reported a post slump
diameter of 725 mm for a self-compacting CBA concrete in accor-
dance with BS EN 12350-8. CBA cement paste by Aydin (2016), on
the other hand, had a vertical slump of 13 mm in accordance with
ASTM C230/C230M-14 (2014) and ASTM WK27311 (2010). As such,
the basis of comparison between studies cannot be established.
Although the workability varies according to CBA utilization and l/b
ratio used in the reviewed studies, the slump shows a tendency to
decrease as CBA content increases. The irregular and angular
texture of CBA, particularly at high CBA contents, is likely to cause
an increase in friction between the aggregate particles and hence
reduce workability (Cadersa and Auckburally, 2014; Cadersa et al.,
2014; Rafieizonooz et al., 2016; Singh and Siddique, 2014a).
Several studies suggested that CBA absorbs the water in the mix.
This is attributed to the higher water demand driven by the high
SSA of ground CBA (Khan and Ganesh, 2016; Mangi et al., 2019a;
Singh and Siddique, 2016). However, the raw CBA could be wet after
the cooling process, depending on the source. If the raw (as
received) CBA is not oven-dried, the presence of the absorbed water
in CBA should be accounted for in the l/b ratio for the proper
estimation of the water demand. The use of superplasticizer also
enables proper workability with lowered l/b ratios and accounts for
the water that can be absorbed by CBA. Only 40 of the 109 reviewed
studies tested for this property. It is very likely that most of these 40
studies used the workability test to characterize the fresh CBA
samples as a variable that affects compressive strength. This could
be attributed to the marginal effect of workability on compressive
strength.
17
5.3.2. Hardened concrete
Drying Shrinkage e The ratio of binder-to-aggregates can affect
the drying shrinkage percentage, whereby a higher volume of the
aggregate reduces the chance of drying shrinkage. Two of the
studies (Dassanayake and Nanayakkara, 2018; Xie and
Ozbakkaloglu, 2015) that tested for drying shrinkage produced
geopolymers and reported a rise in drying shrinkage as CBA content
increased. These two studies utilized CBA at very high levels of
fineness. Dassanayake and Nanayakkara (2018) used ground CBA
retained on a 45 mm sieve at 5, 10 and 20% in a geopolymer concrete
and Xie and Ozbakkaloglu (2015) used CBA with a median particle
size of 54 mm in a geopolymer mortar. For both geopolymers, the
rise of CBA and FA content resulted in the formation of finer pores,
allowing more moisture loss and increased drying shrinkage.
Conversely, several other studies (Cadersa and Auckburally, 2014;
Rafieizonooz et al., 2016; Singh and Siddique, 2014b) reported
declining drying shrinkage values with higher CBA content. These
studies utilized CBA as a sand replacement rather than as a cement
replacement or to form geopolymers.
The chances of drying shrinkage are reduced as the aggregate
content in a concrete increase. As such, most of the drying
shrinkage values reported in these studies were lower than their
control mixes. In addition to that, CBA utilized was not treated
beyond oven-drying and sieving. CBA particles retained their
porosity and absorbed water during mixing, before releasing it
during the drying process, and thus reducing the drying shrinkage
further (Cadersa and Auckburally, 2014; Rafieizonooz et al., 2016;
Singh and Siddique, 2014b). During the heat-curing process per-
formed by Hong and Kim (2019), plastic bags were placed over the
moulds to ensure the moisture in CBA-based geopolymers did not
evaporate, reducing the drying shrinkage. Drying shrinkage tests
allow for prediction of the water evaporation and mass loss during
the curing process; however, they may not reflect field situations
and weather conditions. For instance, in tropical countries such as
Malaysia or Thailand, the relatively constant rainfall and high
18 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Table 7
Setting time of CBA concrete and mortar.
Utilization Material Initial (min) Final (min)
Sand replacement Concrete 439e712 619e1286
Cement replacement Concrete 75e105 360e470
90e135 270e315
Mortar 165e220 212e365
160e300 180e550
110e125 180e200
Cement paste 125e134 303e325
90e135 270e315
Geopolymer Mortar 10e620 35e675
SP: Superplasticizer.
a
Ground granulated blast furnace slag.
b
Sodium hydroxide.
c
Sodium silicate.
humidity could result in reduced drying shrinkage; whereas con-
crete curing in low humidity and rainfall environments, such as in
Argentina or Italy, could require customized l/b ratios to balance the
resulting shrinkage.
Water Absorption e In most of the referenced studies, water
absorption tests were conducted on hardened samples at 28 days,
according to ASTM C642 (2006). The capillary water absorption and
porosity of CBA concrete and mortar can affect the rates of chloride
ingress into the concrete (Kim et al., 2014). The lowest water ab-
sorption reported was 1.19% (Balasubramaniam and Thirugnanam,
2015) and the highest was 32.23% (Aydin, 2016). These studies
concluded that the water absorption of the samples increased as
CBA content rose. This is due, in part, to the porosity of CBA that
allows for water to be absorbed by CBA particles. In addition,
grinding and sieving of CBA used as a cement replacement or in
geopolymers increase its fineness and thus enhances the water
absorption (e.g. Mangi et al., 2019a). The higher SSA of the ground
CBA allows a larger surface area to interact and absorb water from
the mix. The water absorption, however, appears to decrease with
prolonged curing (Khan and Ganesh, 2016; Singh and Siddique,
2015a). Over time, the voids formed by CBA are filled by the
CeSeH gel and Ettringite needles, reducing the rate of water ab-
sorption (Singh and Siddique, 2015a). Interestingly, the water ab-
sorption levels of CBA reported by Kalaw et al. (2015) were
consistently smaller in comparison with other forms of ash, such as
FA or rice husk ash. CBA is the first type of ash removed from the
coal boilers; therefore, it tends to have a higher amount of carbon
and consequently higher water absorption potential compared to
FA. However, FA and rice husk ash usually have smaller particle
sizes and higher SSA compared to CBA, which tend to increase their
water absorption ability.
Flexural and Splitting Tensile Strengths e The flexural and split-
ting tensile strengths found in the reviewed studies showed some
inconsistency. Decreasing flexural strength was reported when CBA
content increased (Aggarwal and Siddique, 2014; Luna et al., 2014).
This also was noted with the splitting tensile strength (M. H. W.
Ibrahim et al., 2015; Rafieizonooz et al., 2016; Soofinajafi et al.,
2016). However, the flexural strength of CBA concrete comparable
to a control mix was also observed (Rafieizonooz et al., 2016; Xie
and Ozbakkaloglu, 2015). The highest and lowest flexural
strength values reported were 24 MPa (Pyo et al., 2019) and
0.13 MPa (Al-Hokabi and Doh, 2019), respectively. The other flex-
ural and splitting tensile strengths results can be observed in
Table 8. The wide range of flexural strength values is likely due to
the varying CBA content in concrete or cement paste. Furthermore,
Aydin (2016) reported a rise in the flexural strength with increasing
CBA content until a cement replacement of 70%. The low flexural
strength is attributed to the high l/b ratios required to enhance
Additives Reference
SP, silica fume, silica powder, fiber, GGBSa Pyo and Kim (2017)
e Khan and Ganesh (2016)
e Mangi et al. (2018)
SP Oruji et al. (2017)
e Argiz et al. (2017)
e Abdulmatin et al. (2018)
Lime Aydin (2016)
e Mangi et al. (2019a)
NaOHb, Na2SiO3c Hanjitsuwan et al. (2017)
workability for higher CBA contents (Aydin, 2016).
Splitting tensile strength highly depends on the quality of the
binder. The pozzolanic properties of CBA used as fine aggregates
improve the quality of the binder, thereby increasing the splitting
tensile strength (Singh and Siddique, 2014a). Several studies
(Maliki et al., 2017; Singh and Siddique, 2016, 2014a;
Thandavamoorthy, 2015) reported increased split tensile strengths
with higher CBA content. The higher pozzolanic content likely
improved the binder quality. For splitting tensile strength, Singh
and Siddique (2014b) and Aggarwal and Siddique (2014) reported
a maximum and minimum splitting tensile strengths of 7.96 MPa
and 1.45 MPa, respectively. The wide range in splitting tensile
strength is likely due to the large variations in the quality of the
binders in each study, as well as the difference in CBA content.
The flexural and splitting tensile strength of CBA concrete and
mortar with 10e30% CBA replacement are found to be equal or
higher than the reference mix. However, as CBA content exceeds
40%, a decrease in the flexural and splitting tensile strength can be
observed. Additives such as superplasticizer and steel fibers can be
used to enhance the flexural and splitting tensile strength (e.g.
Goudar et al., 2019; Ong et al., 2018). The improvement, however,
could be marginal depending on the mix design.
Thermal Properties e The investigated thermal properties of CBA
include thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), the mechanical behavior
under sustained elevated temperatures and thermal conductivity.
TGA can help determine the level of calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 in
CBA concrete. Kim et al. (2016) and Kim and Lee (2018) reported an
initial increase in Ca(OH)2 content as the water migrated from CBA
to the surrounding binder, indicating pozzolanic reactivity (Kim
et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee,
2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim
and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al.,
2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee,
2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim
and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018)(Kim et al.,
2016; Kim and Lee, 2018). The effect of sustained thermal treat-
ments on the compressive strength of CBA concrete and mortar
were inconsistent. For example, Naganathan et al. (2015) burned
their brick samples utilizing CBA as a binder replacement at 200  C
for 20 days. They reported a 30% increase in compressive strength
after this heat treatment. However, a decline in compressive
strength was noticed by Rafieizonooz et al. (2017) after heating CBA
concrete at 800  C for an hour. The presence of Ca(OH)2 in CBA
concrete had degraded and the CeSeH gel was dehydrated. The
highest and lowest thermal conductivity values were reported by
Baite et al. (2016) and Ngohpok et al. (2018) to be 1.78 Wm1K1
and 0.29 Wm1K1, respectively.
Thermal conductivity decreases with higher porosity of the
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 19

concrete and mortar. Foamed and aerated concrete are commonly
used for insulation in the construction industry and have thermal
conductivities of 0.081e0.19 and 0.093e0.16 Wm1K1, respec-
tively (Zhang, 2011). CBA particles induce voids in the concrete and
mortar, resulting in high porosity and low thermal conductivity
(Singh and Siddique, 2015a). However, the void content of CBA
concrete and mortar are lower compared to foamed and aerated
concrete, which utilize air-entraining agents to induce very high
interconnected void content. In general, an increase in CBA content
results in reduced thermal conductivity. This provides a sustainable
method of thermal insulation and can help reduce energy re-
quirements for heating or cooling rooms.
Chemical Attack Resistance e Soaking of CBA concrete in 10%
magnesium sulfate solution for 180 days caused an increase in
compressive strength (Singh and Siddique, 2014b). Improved acid
resistance due to higher CBA content occurred with the utilization
of ground CBA compared to raw CBA (Khan and Ganesh, 2016).
Possible reasons include a decline in permeability and an increase
in porosity caused by the addition of CBA (Aydin, 2016; Mangi et al.,
2019a; Rafieizonooz et al., 2017). On the other hand, a higher
reduction in mass due to sulfate and acid solution immersion with
increasing CBA content was reported by Aydin (2016) and
Thandavamoorthy (2015), respectively. During the drying process,
the release of water from CBA particles alters the porosity of the
cement paste, increasing the void percentage and reducing the
sulfate resistance (Aydin, 2016). Cracking and spalling due to sulfate
attack (Cadersa et al., 2014) and decreased compressive strength
after immersion in acid solution (Balasubramaniam and
Thirugnanam, 2015) were also reported.
Reported chloride ingress in CBA concrete is reduced with the
increase in CBA replacement levels. Several studies attributed this
result to the decrease in pore solution alkalinity caused by the
utilization of CBA (Singh et al., 2016; Singh and Siddique, 2015b).
Findings of the studies investigating CBA replacing cement suggest
that the grinding CBA to a very high fineness could reduce the
presence of interconnected pores in the concrete matrix and,
therefore, the chloride ingress is minimized (Khongpermgoson
et al., 2019; Mene
ndez et al., 2019). Overall, the presence of CBA,
regardless of treatment, appears to improve the resistance of the
concrete and mortar to sulfuric acid, sulfate and chloride attacks.
Accordingly, CBA concrete and mortar can be safely used in areas
experiencing acid rain or other chemically detrimental
environments.
Leaching e The presence of heavy metal ion content in CBA in-
creases the risk of leaching that could lead to serious groundwater
contamination. Rafieizonooz et al. (2017) and Luna et al. (2014)
conducted Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
tests on their CBA concrete. Both studies found that the concen-
tration of heavy metal ions in the leachate from the concrete were
lower compared to raw CBA. This occurred due to the encapsulation
of CBA by the cement paste, which stabilized the toxic metals (Luna
et al., 2014; Rafieizonooz et al., 2017). The observed leaching was
considered minor and did not pose a significant environmental
threat. However, an increase in leaching was reported under
elevated temperatures or with acidic pH (Mene
ndez et al., 2014).
The leaching test from NSF/ANSI 61e2009 was conducted on
mortar having 30% CBA replacing cement. The results indicated an
intermediate risk level with 35% CBA replacement of cement,
dropping to low-risk levels for 10e25% replacement (Mene
ndez
et al., 2014). These risk levels were defined as low, intermediate

Table 8
Flexural and splitting tensile strengths of CBA concrete and mortar.

Utilization Material ff (MPa) ft (MPa) Reference

Sand replacement Concrete 3.6e4.1 1.5e2.5 Aggarwal and Siddique (2014)

e 7.5e8.0 Singh and Siddique (2014b)
1.3e2.6 e Luna et al. (2014)
3.0e6.2 2.5e4.3 Kadam and Patil (2015)
e 2.4e3.3 M. H. W. Ibrahim et al. (2015)
e 2.4e1.8 Siddique and Kunal (2015)
e 2.2e2.6 Singh and Siddique (2015b)
5.3e7.5 2.1e3.5 Thandavamoorthy (2015)
5.0e8.1 4.8e7.6 Hamzah et al. (2016)
4.7e8.3 e Jamaluddin et al. (2016)
3.8e4.0 2.3e2.6 Rafieizonooz et al. (2016)
e 2.2e3.0 Singh and Siddique (2016)
e 4.5e4.8 Soofinajafi et al. (2016)
e 2.7e3.6 Maliki et al. (2017)
e 4.4e5.0 Kim and Lee (2018)
1.9e2.2 1.5e1.7 Ngohpok et al. (2018)
e 3.4e3.7 Ong et al. (2018)
7.4e8.0 4.0e4.3 Goudar et al. (2019)
1.9e3.4 1.5e3.0 Majhi and Nayak (2019)
e 1.6e3.5 Jawahar et al. (2019)
e 2.3e3.2 Singh et al. (2019b)
8.0e24.0 e Pyo et al. (2019)
Mortar 0.1e0.3 e Al-Hokabi and Doh (2019)
Cement replacement Concrete 3.7e5.4 1.7e2.9 Mangi et al. (2019e)
e 1.7e2.9 Mangi et al. (2019c)
e 1.9e2.5 Mangi et al. (2018)
Mortar 5.7e9.1 e Argiz et al. (2018a)
Cement paste 0.4e2.1 e Aydin (2016)
Geopolymer Concrete 0.6e1.7 e Xie and Ozbakkaloglu (2015)
5.2e5.7 e Dassanayake and Nanayakkara (2018)

ff ¼ Flexural strength.
ft ¼ Splitting tensile strength.
20 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
and high through the combination of the environmental burden
(EB) values proposed in the study and the mechanical behavior of
the mortar. The EB value is the integral value of the concentration of
the chemical elements multiplied by the hazard rating of each
element (Mene
ndez et al., 2014).
Kim et al. (2015) tested porous concrete with CBA as a sand
replacement for heavy metal immobilization and leaching. The
porous concrete made with alkali-activated slag immobilized the
heavy metals more effectively than the OPC concrete. Unlike the
conventional studies, Dong et al. (2019) used a CBA-based geo-
polymer to encapsulate polluted soil to ultimately reduce the heavy
metal leaching. Both studies suggest that the utilization of CBA in
concrete allows for the stabilization of the heavy metal elements
contained in CBA as well as other materials, keeping potential
leaching within acceptable limits. As such, CBA concrete can be
considered a sustainable remediation action for soil or other ma-
terials contaminated with heavy metals.
6. Gap analysis
A gap analysis was conducted to evaluate the significance of the
available information on the characteristics of CBA concrete and
mortar. This was gauged by the frequency (number of studies), and
quality (depth and criticality). It is important to differentiate be-
tween these two measures. Therefore, the subjectivity in rating
these studies should not be overruled. This is particularly critical in
view of the relatively limited number of studies on CBA. Several
references merely report the data obtained from laboratory tests
with little insight or discussion on the variation and scatter in the
results. The gap analysis is primarily intended to identify the
research aspects and areas that require further investigation. The
conclusions suggested by various studies regarding the behavior of
CBA concrete and mortar should undergo further testing to eval-
uate their validity. As such, this gap analysis may not provide a
holistic comparison for the reported aspects and factors but should
rather be indicative.
The research aspects and properties grouped in Table 9 describe
the information currently available on the utilization of CBA as a
substitute building material. There are two criteria used to evaluate
the reviewed studies: availability and importance. A 5-point Likert
scale was used to rate 50 reviewed studies considering these two
factors. The availability of data or lack thereof (R1) is rated based on
the number of available studies pertinent to a given aspect: 1 point
(81e100 studies) for widely available, 2 points (61e80 studies) for
available, 3 points (41e60 studies) and 4 points (21e40 studies) for
sparse, 5 points (0e20 studies) for scarce or unavailable.
Conversely, importance of studies (R2) is scored in a reverse order:
1 point denotes an aspect that provides additional information
about CBA utilization but has little to no impact on its use in con-
struction, 5 points indicates an aspect that greatly affects CBA uti-
lization in building, and values in between are based on judgment.
The aspects that can affect the performance and sustainability of
commercial CBA concrete structures and are relatively unknown
being given higher scores than aspects that have been widely
investigated and established. The overall ranking is achieved by
multiplying these two factors (R1 x R2). The aspects and their
rankings are sorted by the total score to prioritize the areas of
research, such that the highest-ranked aspect is believed to be
critically important and least investigated.
As per the rankings shown in Table 9, the long-term behavior of
CBA as a building material is believed to require the most attention.
It is instrumental to establish confidence in the durability of CBA
concrete to recommend its use, particularly in view of the limited
number of pertinent studies at the time of this review. Apart from a
single study on the performance of an 8-year old road involving
MSWI bottom ash (Kockum and Lindqvist, 2016), research on the
long-term durability of concrete with CBA is still scarce. However,
the long-term leaching, as well as applications for recycling CBA
and other coal combustion byproducts, have been investigated
previously (F€ allman and Aurell, 1996; Reijnders, 2005). The short-
term durability of CBA as a building material has been investi-
gated in the 46 studies through abrasion resistance, chemical attack
resistance, flame and heat resistance testing and other tests. The
durability of CBA concrete and mortar should be better understood.
This requires considering a range of factors and reasons, such as the
presence of acid rain, the increased carbon pollution and wetting-
drying cycles caused by heavy downpour and high temperatures.
Ghosh et al. (2019) conducted durability tests including
wetting-drying cycles, sulfuric and hydrochloric acid resistance on
a geopolymer concrete utilizing CBA as the fine aggregate. The
geopolymer concrete held up well in terms of compressive strength
and mass loss compared with an OPC concrete, displaying that CBA
has a high potential as a sand replacement (Ghosh et al., 2019). This
is despite the low pozzolanic content of CBA compared to FA.
Studies on raw CBA leaching have been performed for many years
to cope with the continuous changes in the coal boiler technology
and coal type (Fa €llman and Aurell, 1996; Jones et al., 2012). However,
only four of the reviewed studies conducted short-term leaching
tests on CBA concrete and mortar. Apparently, CBA concrete and
mortar leach only small amounts of harmful elements (Rafieizonooz
et al., 2017). These tests were only carried out on mortar and con-
crete with CBA replacing cement and sand respectively. Leaching
tests on CBA-derived geopolymers have not yet been performed. To
fully incorporate CBA concrete and mortar in the construction in-
dustry, the proper environmental protection policies must be
determined. Further exploration of CBA concrete leaching and
chemical attack resistance aside from the 27 studies shown in Table 9
can help refine these policies. Localized studies can identify the
differences between CBA batches that have different physical and
chemical characteristics depending on the source.
Results of the other test, such as workability, setting time,
shrinkage, compressive, flexural and tensile strengths, and elec-
trical resistivity, vary in their availability and importance. Increased
in-depth research on CBA as a building material can portray a better
picture of the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing CBA con-
crete and mortar. Furthermore, the impact of physical and chemical
treatments of the raw CBA on these results are observed. Combined
physical and chemical treatments are more common (41 studies)
than separate physical (39 studies) or chemical (13 studies) treat-
ments. To this end, these studies somewhat allow better adjust-
ment of CBA treatments and mix design. Aside from the use of alkali
activators (Dassanayake and Nanayakkara, 2018; Santa et al., 2017)
and the grinding of CBA (A. H. Ibrahim et al., 2015; Oruji et al., 2017),
optimization of the treatments is not thoroughly addressed. Addi-
tionally, the reviewed studies have focused almost exclusively on
raw CBA directly collected from boilers or incinerators. The use of
CBA disposed of in landfills or wet ash ponds as a building material
has not been studied. Unlined ash ponds show signs of contami-
nating groundwater (Harkness et al., 2016) and ash ponds spills
have long-lasting effects (Ramsey et al., 2019). These landfills and
wet ash ponds also have finite space, and the building of new ponds
could affect the availability of suitable habitat for wildlife due to
land clearing.
From this gap analysis, the aspects that require further research
can be identified. The exploration of CBA as a building material is
still in a developing stage. The general consensus of the basis for
comparison including CBA source is inevitable for a better under-
standing of the material’s characteristics and performance. There is
a pressing need for more comprehensive studies on the perfor-
mance of CBA from different sources to achieve this goal. An in-
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 21

Table 9
Gap analysis and ranking of the reviewed studies based on the research aspects of CBA*.

Aspect No. Studies Availability (R1) Importance (R2) Total

Long-term behavior 0 5 5 25
Leaching test 7 5 5 25
Abrasion resistance 6 5 5 25
Chemical attack resistance 19 5 5 25
Chemical treatment only 13 5 4 20
Workability 40 4 5 20
Flexural and tensile strength 35 4 4 16
Physical treatment only 39 4 4 16
Setting time 9 5 3 15
Shrinkage 14 5 3 15
Flame and heat resistance 15 5 3 15
Physical and chemical treatment 41 3 4 12
Microstructure 38 4 3 12
Water absorption 33 4 3 12
Use in geopolymer 12 5 2 10
Electrical resistivity 3 5 2 10
As a cement replacement 34 4 2 8
Compressive strength 94 1 5 5
As a sand replacement 63 2 2 4
Physical characteristics of raw material 72 2 1 2
Chemical characteristics of raw material 62 2 1 1

R1: 1: widely available, 2 & 3: sparse and/or questionable, 4& 5: scarce and/or unavailable.
R2: 1: relevant but not essential 2 & 3: important, 4 & 5: critical.
*Sorted by total score (R1 x R2).

depth study of how coal from different countries affects the char-
acteristics of the produced CBA will also be beneficial for future
research.
7. Summary of review
This current review has critically explored the effect of CBA
characteristics and treatments on the properties of CBA concrete
and mortar, particularly compressive strength. The review scruti-
nized their manifestations in fresh and hardened forms.
Physical Properties e The reported Gs of the CBA values are less
variable in comparison with the SSA, FM or u values. They are
generally are lower than those of aggregate, which establishes CBA
as a lightweight material. The SSA had a wide range (93e14180 m2/
kg) since the grinding of CBA is likely to be performed to different
levels. The FM vary appreciably (1.4e5.6) for the same reason. The
u values (1.0e37.2%), on the other hand, are highly dependent on
the coal type burned in the power plant and the burning process.
Chemical Composition e A comparison of typical silica, alumina,
ferric oxide and carbon contents in CBA between countries has
shown that most of the countries comply with the chemical
composition requirements of class “F” or class “C” pozzolan. In
general, the silica content is the highest (26.2e79.2 wt%), followed
by alumina (9.3e35.0 wt%) and ferric oxide (1.0e20.9 wt%). The LOI
content ranges widely from 0.4 to 19.5 wt%. The carbon content
found in CBA is a leftover from the processes with lower efficiency
and/or in a coal type with high ash content, such as lignite coal
(Morse and Turgeon, 2012). The CBA reviewed in this article is
generally obtained from wide range sources, but there are multiple
studies used CBA from the same facility. These studies (originating
mainly from India, Malaysia and South Korea) could portray the
variation in CBA properties from year to year.
Treatment e The bulk of the reviewed studies have conducted
some form of physical or chemical treatment on CBA to enhance the
mechanical properties of CBA concrete and mortar, especially
compressive strength. Common physical treatments include dry-
ing, sieving and grinding. Most of the reviewed studies used ball-
milled CBA. Alkali activators (sodium hydroxide and sodium sili-
cate) as well as superplasticizers (polycarboxylate ether-based) are
the chemical agents frequently used for treatment. CBA has similar
characteristics of river sand and is very suitable as a fine aggregate
replacement. As such, drying, sieving and the addition of super-
plasticizer are the prevalent treatments in studies utilizing CBA as a
sand replacement. For CBA as a cement replacement or in geo-
polymers, additional treatment such as grinding is required to in-
crease the SSA and pozzolanic reactivity of CBA. In particular, the
inclusion of alkali activators is necessary in the production of CBA-
based geopolymers. Although heat treatments appear to improve
the mechanical properties of CBA-based geopolymer, its effect on
concrete utilizing CBA as a sand or cement replacement require
further investigation.
Compressive Strength e The compressive strength of the CBA
concrete and mortar widely ranged from 1 to 163 MPa (sand
replacement), 3e72 MPa (cement replacement) and 1e42 MPa
(in geopolymer). The LOI content does not appear to significantly
affect the compressive strength. The use of similar CBA content in
a cementitious matrix (mortar or concrete) produces compres-
sive strengths that vary greatly. This can be attributed to the
specifics of the applied CBA treatment. To compensate for the low
strength of CBA concrete, additives such as steel fibers can be
used. For example, the CBA concrete made by Pyo et al. (2019)
and Goudar et al. (2019) utilized reinforcing additives such as
steel fibers, resulting in improved compressive strengths (163
and 44 MPa, respectively). The use of heat-curing and microwave
heating by Hong and Kim (2019) enhanced producing the
compressive strengths CBA-based geopolymers to 35e42 MPa.
This strength is fairly acceptable since curing was conducted for
36 h only.
Morphology e The incorporation of CBA as a substitute material
in concrete and mortar displayed different morphology compared
to its utilization in geopolymers. SEM images of concrete with CBA
as a sand or cement replacement show the presence of Ettringite
and disparate ITZs. Numerous capillary voids can be observed. In
comparison, the microstructure of CBA-based geopolymers is
relatively homogenous with fewer pores, despite the inclusion of
fine and coarse aggregate. There are few crystalline structures
present in the geopolymer matrix. This is likely to be a major factor
in the low compressive strengths generally achieved by CBA-based
22 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
geopolymers.
Workability e The initial and final setting times of the CBA
concrete and mortar reviewed in this study range from 10 to
712 min and 35e1286 min, respectively. The main factors influ-
encing the setting time include l/b ratio of the mix design and the
presence of other materials, such as superplasticizer or alkali acti-
vators. The setting time is closely related to the workability of CBA
concrete. Generally, superplasticizer utilization increases the
workability of CBA mix, but retards the setting time. The SSA and
LOI content of CBA used also influence the workability. Higher SSA
and carbon contents increase the possibility of moisture absorption
from l/b ratio used, lowering workability and extending the setting
time. Conversely, the increased water absorption reduces drying
shrinkage upon hardening. As drying shrinkage occurs, the free
water bonded to the CBA is released and replaces the water lost due
to evaporation.
Other Properties e The flexural and splitting tensile strengths
widely vary (0.1e24.0 MPa and 1.5e7.6 MPa, respectively) due to
variations in the binder type and the CBA characteristics and
content. Amongst the studies that have tested the thermal prop-
erties of CBA concrete, it is generally agreed that CBA concrete
functions well as a thermal insulator. Chemical attack resistance
has shown no obvious correlation with the compressive strength
and should be conducted further for in-depth evaluation. Leaching
tests on CBA concrete suggested that CBA in building materials did
not release notable contaminants to constitute an environmental
concern. In fact, the use of CBA could help remediate contami-
nated soils or other materials through encapsulation and
immobilization.
Gaps e The lapses and inconsistencies identified in the con-
ducted gap analysis can be used to guide future research directions
e particularly in proposing more efficient treatments for CBA. The
observed variability in setting time of CBA concrete and mortar
requires further investigation (Table 7). The gap analysis has
confirmed the need to study the relationship between CBA treat-
ment and the setting time and leaching potential (Table 9). The
chemical treatment of CBA should be explored and optimized
beyond the concentrations of the alkali activators. In view of the
current limited industrial use of CBA, conducting durability tests
should be performed to encourage assurance in the utilization of
CBA. Of particular importance are the long-term behavior, leaching,
abrasion resistance and chemical attack resistance. By establishing
these properties of CBA concrete, engineers can prescribe the best
applications for CBA concrete. For instance, the abrasion and
chemical attack resistance of CBA concrete are important to decide
if it can be used to build storm drains, where debris, rain and other
materials frequently run through.
8. Concluding remarks
CBA is readily suitable for use as a sand replacement and other
applications, such as in OPC clinker production (Tsakiridis et al.,
2016) or as a backfill material (Pant et al., 2019). However, CBA
utilization as a cement replacement or in geopolymer is hampered
by its lower pozzolanic activity in comparison with other waste
materials such as FA or rice husk ash. The concrete and mortar with
the highest compressive strength utilized CBA as a cement substi-
tute mostly at about 10e20% replacement. For CBA to be
commercially viable, replacements should exceed 30% without
penalizing the compressive strengthe similar to the high replace-
ment levels of cement with FA. Successful utilization of CBA as a
cement replacement requires grinding to achieve SSA similar to
OPC or FA, and chemical treatments such as alkali activators. In
addition to grinding and chemical additives, CBA-based geo-
polymers mainly benefit from heat-curing, e.g. extended dry oven
or other heat treatments. These common treatments help to
remove excess water in the mix and increase the N-A-S-H gel for-
mation, thereby increasing the compressive strength of the mix. As
a result, CBA can be used as a cement replacement or in geo-
polymers in roles requiring low compressive strength, e.g. bricks.
Optimization of CBA utilization can be carried out by conducting
further evaluation of treatments such as reinforcing additives or
heat-curing. More research needs to be conducted to confirm CBA’s
abilities as a thermal insulator or its low probability of leaching
after these treatments are applied. Commercial use of CBA as a
binder or in geopolymer would require significant investment into
procurement or retrofitting of equipment to accommodate the
required CBA treatments. The procurement for suitable additives
will further add to the cost required to produce CBA concrete.
However, CBA utilization as a fine aggregate replacement needs
only minimal pre-use preparation, similar to river sand. It also
eliminates the cost associated with landfill or ash pond disposal
and reduces the non-stop consumption of natural resources, e.g.
river sand. To this end, the environmental and sustainable gain
should be considered. In general, a holistic comparison of the
physical and chemical characteristics of CBA could be only based on
a standardized set of tests. It is necessary to research whether these
characteristics can be correlated with the coal type, source and
burning process used in power plants. Investigation of the impact of
physical and chemical treatments in addition to these correlations
could assist in building a predictive model of CBA concrete’s me-
chanical properties.
Utilizing the benefits of CBA in lieu of hydraulic cement and
natural aggregate could stimulate a paradigm sustainable trans-
formation in construction procedures and practices on the long
term. This review has shown the CBA potential to meet mechanical
properties of concrete and provide a range of smart environmental
solutions. However, the use of CBA as a substitute for common
building material is currently rather limited and expected to be
challenged by the key players in the construction market. The
anticipated resistive construction culture could be partly driven by
the incomplete picture of the material behavior, source-dependent
characteristics, and the unknown complexity and cost of treatment.
A standardized testing and mix design method for CBA utilization
as a cement substitute could allow for well-established compari-
sons with common concrete construction. This will further assist in
regulating the necessary CBA treatments. Domination of conven-
tional building materials is typically perceived as a major marketing
obstacle for any new entrantdparticularly when many stake-
holders are suspicious or unaware of the value of a substitute, and
hence resist change (Mousa et al., 2018; Zidan et al., 2013). In fact,
low-market rivalry is common when a well-established construc-
tion material is replaced or attempted to be partially displaced with
a new substitute (Mousa, 2015). This places research institutions
and government agencies on the forefront of advocating sustain-
able construction.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Monash University Malaysia
through the 2018 Monash University Malaysia e Sunway Group of
Companies Grant Scheme. The authors would like to extend their
gratitude to Ze Ching Liew and Lahiru Gunawardena for their
contribution to this effort.
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752 23

References concrete with manufactured sand as fine aggregate. J. Ind. Pollut. Contr.
Brake, N.A., Oruji, S., Haselbach, L., 2018. Increasing compressive strength of recy-
cled aggregate concrete using high fineness bottom ash blended cement. In:
Abdulmatin, A., Tangchirapat, W., Jaturapitakkul, C., 2018. An investigation of bot-
International Conference on Transportation and Development 2018: Airfield
tom ash as a pozzolanic material. Construct. Build. Mater. 186, 155e162. https://
and Highway Pavements - Selected Papers from the International Conference
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.101.
on Transportation and Development 2018. American Society of Civil Engineers
Abidin, N.E.Z., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Kamaruddin, K., Hamzah, A.F., 2014.
(ASCE), pp. 401e410. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481554.041.
The effect of bottom ash on fresh characteristic, compressive strength and
Br

as, A., Faustino, P., 2016. Repair mortars and new concretes with coal bottom and
water absorption of self-compacting concrete. In: Applied Mechanics and Ma-
biomass ashes using rheological optimisation. Int. J. Environ. Res. 10, 203e216.
terials. Trans Tech Publications Ltd, pp. 145e151. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.
https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2016.57715.
scientific.net/AMM.660.145.
Bs EN 12350-8, 2010. Testing Fresh Concrete. Self-Compacting Concrete. Slump-
Abidin, N.E.Z., Jamaluddin, N., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Kamaruddin, K., Hamzah, A.F., 2017.
Flow Test. British Standards Institution.
Slender circular steel tube (CFST) columns filled with self-compacting concrete
Burhanudin, M.K., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Sani, M.S.H.M., Juki, M.I., Jamaluddin, N.,
incorporating coal bottom ash. Malays. Construct. Res. J. 21, 87e95.
Jaya, R.P., Shahidan, S., Basirun, N.F., Bosro, M.Z.M., 2018. Influence of ground
Aggarwal, Y., Siddique, R., 2014. Microstructure and properties of concrete using
coal bottom ash with different grinding time as cement replacement material
bottom ash and waste foundry sand as partial replacement of fine aggregates.
on the strength of concrete. Malays. Construct. Res. J. 4, 93e102.
Construct. Build. Mater. 54, 210e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Cadersa, A., Auckburally, I., 2014. Use of unprocessed coal bottom ash as partial fine
j.conbuildmat.2013.12.051.
aggregate replacement in concrete. Univ. Mauritius Res. J. 30, 62e84.
Ahn, Y.B., Jang, J.G., Lee, H.K., 2016. Mechanical properties of lightweight concrete
Cadersa, A.S., Rana, J., Ramjeawon, T., 2014. Assessing the durability of coal bottom
made with coal ashes after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cement Concr.
ash as aggregate replacement in low strength concrete. J. Emerg. Trends Eng.
Compos. 72, 27e38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.05.028.
Appl. Sci. 5, 344e349.
Al-Hokabi, A.A.M.N., Doh, S.I., 2019. Study on the mechanical properties of bottom
Cera-Chem Private Limited, 2017. Cera Polycure-R. Chennai.
ash as a partial sand replacement in a non-load bearing fly ash bricks. Saudi J.
Cheriaf, M., Rocha, J.C., Pe
ra, J., 1999. Pozzolanic properties of pulverized coal
Civ. Eng. 3, 59e66. https://doi.org/10.21276/sjce.2019.3.3.2.
combustion bottom ash. Cement Concr. Res. 29, 1387e1391. https://doi.org/
American Coal Ash Association, 2017. CCP FAQs [WWW document]. Am. Coal Ash
10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00098-8.
Assoc. URL https://www.acaa-usa.org/aboutcoalash/ccpfaqs.aspx#Q13 accessed
Coal combustion byproducts [WWW Document]. Univ. Kentucky, 2018. URL. http://
1.8.19.
www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-for-combustionbyproducts.php. accessed 11.25.18.
American Concrete Institute, 2019. High performance concrete [WWW Document].
Dassanayake, D.M.S.P., Nanayakkara, S.M.A., 2018. Development of geopolymer with
Am. Concr. Inst. URL https://www.concrete.org/topicsinconcrete/topicdetail/
coal fired boiler ash. In: 2018 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference
high performance concrete#webpages accessed 1.18.19.
(MERCon), pp. 356e361. https://doi.org/10.1109/MERCon.2018.8421910.
Aminudin, E., Din, M.F., Hussin, M.W., Iwao, K., Mohanadoss, P., Ichikawa, Y., 2015.
Donatello, S., Maltseva, O., Fern
andez-Jime
nez, A., Palomo, A., 2014. The early age
Properties of industrial boiler ash as sand replacement and thermal improve-
hydration reactions of a hybrid cement containing a very high content of coal
ment in aerated concrete. Malays. J. Civ. Eng. 27, 155e169. Special.
bottom ash. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 97, 929e937. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12751.
Anderson, D., Usmen, M., Moulton, L.K., 1976. Use of power plant aggregate in
Dong, Y., Zhou, M., Xiang, Y., Wan, S., Li, H., Hou, H., 2019. Barrier effect of coal
bituminous construction. In: Transportation Research Record Journal of the
bottom ash-based geopolymers on soil contaminated by heavy metals. RSC Adv.
Transportation Research Board, pp. 18e24.
9, 28695e28703. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA05542H.
Anggono, A.D., Muttaqiem, Z., Darmawan, A.S., Besar Riyadi, T.W., Yulianto, A.,
ECOBA, 2016. Production and utilisation of CCPs in Europe (EU 15) in 2016 [WWW
Sugito, B., Purbolaksono, J., Abdullah, E.M., 2019. Mechanical properties of
document]. In: ECOBA Eur. Coal Combust. Prod. Assoc.. URL. http://www.ecoba.
concrete block reinforced with recycle HDPE and coal bottom ash. Mater. Sci.
com/ecobaccpprod.html. accessed 1.22.19.
Forum 961, 51e56. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.961.51.
€llman, A.M., Aurell, B., 1996. Leaching tests for environmental assessment of
Fa
Anghelescu, L., Cruceru, M., Diaconu, B.M., Valentim, B., 2018. Usage of bottom ash
inorganic substances in wastes, Sweden. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/
from coal combustion to replace natural aggregate in manufacturing of building
10.1016/0048-9697(95)04799-9.
materials. In: International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference
Ghosh, Avijit, Ghosh, Arup, Neogi, S., 2018. Evaluation of physical and thermal
Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM. International
properties of coal combustion residue blended concrete for energy efficient
Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference, pp. 231e238. https://doi.org/
building application in India. Adv. Build. Energy Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10.5593/sgem2018/4.2/S18.030.
17512549.2018.1557076.
Antoni, K., Klarens, K., Indranata, M., Al Jamali, L., Hardjito, D., 2017. The use of
Ghosh, R., Gupta, S.K., Kumar, A., Kumar, S., 2019. Durability and mechanical
bottom ash for replacing fine aggregate in concrete paving blocks. In: Park, J.-
behavior of fly ash-GGBFS geopolymer concrete utilizing bottom ash as fine
W., Ay Lie, H., Hardjasaputra, H., Thayaalan, P. (Eds.), MATEC Web of Confer-
aggregate. Trans. Indian Ceram. Soc. 78, 24e33. https://doi.org/10.1080/
ences. EDP Sciences, 01005. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201713801005.
0371750X.2019.1581092.
Arenas, C., Leiva, C., Vilches, L.F., Cifuentes, H., Rodríguez-Gal

an, M., 2015. Technical
Goodwin, R.W., 2014. Chapter 5 - operating disposal project results. In: Combustion
specifications for highway noise barriers made of coal bottom ash-based sound
Ash Residue Management: an Engineering Perspective. Elsevier Inc., Kidlington,
absorbing concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 95, 585e591. https://doi.org/
pp. 63e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420038-8.12001-4.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.107.

ndez, E., Moragues, A., Sanjuan, M.A., 2018a. Recent advances in coal Goudar, S.K., Shivaprasad, K.N., Das, B.B., 2019. Mechanical properties of fiber-
Argiz, C., Mene
reinforced concrete using coal-bottom ash as replacement of fine aggregate.
bottom ash use as a new common Portland cement constituent. Struct. Eng. Int.
In: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Springer, pp. 863e872. https://doi.org/
24, 503e508. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686613X13768348400518.

ndez, E., 2018b. Use of ground coal bottom ash as 10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_77.
Argiz, C., Moragues, A., Mene
Govindarajan, D., Keerthana, M., Kumara raja, G., Kumar, R.P., 2014. Experimental
cement constituent in concretes exposed to chloride environments. J. Clean.
investigation on replacement of fine aggregate with bottom ash in concrete. Int.
Prod. 170, 25e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.117.
J. ChemTech Res. 6, 5570e5574. CODEN (USA.
Argiz, C., Sanju
an, M., Mene
ndez, E., 2017. Coal bottom ash for Portland cement
Hamzah, A.F., Fadzil, N., Wan Ibrahim, M.H., Jamaluddin, N., Jaya, R.P., Arshad, M.F.,
production. Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 1e7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
Abidin, N.E.Z., Dahalan, N.H., 2017. Strength behaviour of coal bottom ash self-
6068286.
compacting concrete exposed to cyclic wetting-drying in seawater. J. Eng. Appl.
AS 1379-2007, 2007. Specification and Supply of Concrete. Standards Australia,
Sci. 12, 6922e6927. https://doi.org/10.3923/jeasci.2017.6922.6927.
Sydney.
Hamzah, A.F., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Jaya, R.P., Arshad, M.F., Abidin, N.E.Z.,
ASTM C230/C230M-14, 2014. Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests
2015. Fresh characteristic and mechanical compressive strength development
of Hydraulic Cement.
of self-compacting concrete integrating coal bottom ash as partial fine aggre-
ASTM C618-17a, 2017. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined
gates replacement. Int. J. Eng. Technol. IJET-IJENS 15, 61e67.
natural pozzolan for use in concrete. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0618-17A.
Hamzah, A.F., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Jaya, R.P., Arshad, M.F., Zainal
ASTM C642, 2006. Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in
Abidin, N.E., Manan, E.A., Omar, N.A., 2016. Nomograph of self-compacting
Hardened Concrete.
concrete mix design incorporating coal bottom ash as partial replacement of
ASTM D388-18a, 2018. Standard classification of coals by rank. West Conshohocken,
fine aggregates. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 11, 1671e1675. https://doi.org/10.3923/
PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0388-18A.
jeasci.2016.1671.1675.
ASTM D4326-13, 2013. Standard test method for major and minor rlements in coal
Hanjitsuwan, S., Phoo-ngernkham, T., Damrongwiriyanupap, N., 2017. Comparative
and coke ash by X-ray fluorescence. https://doi.org/10.1520/D4326-13.
study using Portland cement and calcium carbide residue as a promoter in
ASTM WK27311, 2010. Test Method for Measurement of Cement Paste Consistency
bottom ash geopolymer mortar. Construct. Build. Mater. 133, 128e134. https://
Using a Mini-Slump Cone.
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.046.
Aydin, E., 2016. Novel coal bottom ash waste composites for sustainable construc-
Hansika, H., Nanayakkara, A., 2019. Investigation on properties of cellular light-
tion. Construct. Build. Mater. 124, 582e588. https://doi.org/10.1016/
weight concrete blocks with bottom ash. In: Moratuwa Engineering Research
j.conbuildmat.2016.07.142.
Conference (MERCon) 2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Baite, E., Messan, A., Hannawi, K., Tsobnang, F., Prince, W., 2016. Physical and
(IEEE), pp. 424e429. https://doi.org/10.1109/mercon.2019.8818756.
transfer properties of mortar containing coal bottom ash aggregates from
Haq, E.U., Kunjalukkal Padmanabhan, S., Licciulli, A., 2014. Synthesis and charac-
Tefereyre (Niger). Construct. Build. Mater. 125, 919e926. https://doi.org/
teristics of fly ash and bottom ash based geopolymerseA comparative study.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.117.
Ceram. Int. 40, 2965e2971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.10.012.
Balasubramaniam, T., Thirugnanam, G.S., 2015. Durability studies on bottom ash
Harkness, J.S., Sulkin, B., Vengosh, A., 2016. Evidence for coal ash ponds leaking in
24 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
the Southeastern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.6b01727.
Harrison, W.H., 1974. Synthetic aggregates sources and resources. Concrete 8,
41e44.
Harvey, F., 2019. Global Coal Use up as Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise | Environ-
ment | the Guardian [WWW Document]. Guard. News Media Ltd. URL. https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/26/global-coal-use-up-by-
third-as-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise. accessed 11.11.19.
Hashemi, S.S.G., Mahmud, H. Bin, Djobo, J.N.Y., Tan, C.G., Ang, B.C., Ranjbar, N., 2018.
Microstructural characterization and mechanical properties of bottom ash
mortar. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 797e804. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.09.191.
Hong, S., Kim, H., 2019. Robust synthesis of coal bottom ash-based geopolymers
using additional microwave heating and curing for high compressive strength
properties. Kor. J. Chem. Eng. 36, 1164e1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-
019-0286-y.
Ibrahim, A.H., Choong, K., Megat Johari, M.A., Izham Md Noor, S., Liyana Zainal, N.,
Ariffin, K.S., 2015. Effects of coal bottom ash on the compressive strength of
portland cement mortar. Appl. Mech. Mater. 802, 149e154. https://doi.org/10.
4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.802.149.
Ibrahim, A.H., Keong, C.K., Johari, M.A.M., Rashid, M.R.M., Ariffin, K.S., 2019. Influ-
ence of coal bottom ash on properties of Portland cement mortar. Int. J. Integr.
Eng. 11 https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2019.11.01.008, 069e077.
Ibrahim, M.H.W., Hamzah, A.F., Jamaluddin, N., Ramadhansyah, P.J., Fadzil, A.M.,
2015. Split tensile strength on self-compacting concrete containing coal bottom
ash. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 195, 2280e2289. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2015.06.317.
Jamaluddin, N., Hamzah, A.F., Wan Ibrahim, M.H., Jaya, R.P., Arshad, M.F.,
Abidin, N.E.Z., Dahalan, N.H., 2016. Fresh properties and flexural strength of
self-compacting concrete integrating coal bottom ash. In: MATEC Web of
Conferences. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164701010.
Jang, J.G., Kim, H.J., Kim, H.K., Lee, H.K., 2016. Resistance of coal bottom ash mortar
against the coupled deterioration of carbonation and chloride penetration.
Mater. Des. 93, 160e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.074.
Jawahar, S., Magesh, M., Jagen, V., Vasugi, 2019. Performance evaluation of concrete
using bottom ash as fine aggregate. Int. J. Innovative Technol. Explor. Eng. 8,
95e100.
Jones, K.B., Ruppert, L.F., Swanson, S.M., 2012. Leaching of elements from bottom
ash, economizer fly ash, and fly ash from two coal-fired power plants. Int. J. Coal
Geol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2011.10.007.
Kadam, M.P., Patil, Y.D., 2015. Effect of sieved coal bottom ash as a sand replacement
on the properties of cement concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 67, 227e234. https://
doi.org/10.1680/macr.14.00179.
Kadir, A.A., Hassan, M.I.H., Abdullah, M.M.A.B., 2016. Investigation on leaching
behaviour of fly ash and bottom ash replacement in self-compacting concrete.
In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 012036. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/133/1/012036.
Kalaw, M.E.L., Culaba, A.B., Thang Nguyen, H., Nguyen, K., Hinode, H.,
Kurniawan, W., Gallardo, S.M., Promentilla, M.A.B., 2015. Mechanical and
thermal properties of geopolymers from mixtures of coal ash and rice hull ash
using water glass solution as activator. ASEAN J. Chem. Eng. 15, 51e61.
Kamal, N., Hayder, G., Ahmed, O., Beddu, S., Nuruddin, M., Shafiq, N., 2016. Sus-
tainable waste management of bottom ash as cement replacement in green
building. In: 3rd International Conference on Civil, Offshore and Environmental
Engineering. CRC Press, pp. 517e519. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21942-105.
Kamal, N.L.M., Beddu, S., Zahari, N.M., Syamsir, A., Itam, Z., Mohamad, D.,
Sadon, S.N., Yang, K.J., Manan, T.S.B.A., 2019. Immobilization of heavy metal in
coal bottom ash (CBA) mortar. In: Applied Physics of Condensed Matter (APCOM
2019). AIP Publishing, 020038. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5118046.
Khan, R., Ganesh, A., 2016. The effect of coal bottom ash (CBA) on mechanical and
durability characteristics of concrete. J. Build. Mater. Struct. 3, 31e42.
Khongpermgoson, P., Abdulmatin, A., Tangchirapat, W., Jaturapitakkul, C., 2019.
Evaluation of compressive strength and resistance of chloride ingress of con-
crete using a novel binder from ground coal bottom ash and ground calcium
carbide residue. Construct. Build. Mater. 214, 631e640. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.04.145.
Kim, G.M., Jang, J.G., Khalid, H.R., Lee, H.K., 2017. Water purification characteristics
of pervious concrete fabricated with CSA cement and bottom ash aggregates.
Construct. Build. Mater. 136, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.01.020.
Kim, G.M., Jang, J.G., Naeem, F., Lee, H.K., 2015. Heavy metal leaching, CO2 uptake
and mechanical characteristics of carbonated porous concrete with alkali-
activated slag and bottom ash. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 9, 283e294. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40069-015-0111-x.
Kim, H.-K., 2015. Utilization of sieved and ground coal bottom ash powders as a
coarse binder in high-strength mortar to improve workability. Construct. Build.
Mater. 91, 57e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.017.
Kim, H.K., Ha, K.A., Lee, H.K., 2016. Internal-curing efficiency of cold-bonded coal
bottom ash aggregate for high-strength mortar. Construct. Build. Mater. 126,
1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.125.
Kim, H.K., Jang, J.G., Choi, Y.C., Lee, H.K., 2014. Improved chloride resistance of high-
strength concrete amended with coal bottom ash for internal curing. Construct.
Build. Mater. 71, 334e343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.069.
Kim, H.K., Lee, H.K., 2018. Hydration kinetics of high-strength concrete with un-
treated coal bottom ash for internal curing. Cement Concr. Compos. 91, 67e75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cencomcomp.2018.04.017.
Kim, H.K., Lee, H.K., 2016. Autogenous shrinkage reduction with untreated coal
bottom ash for high-strength concrete. ACI Mater. J. 113, 277e285. https://
doi.org/10.14359/51688700.
Kim, H.K., Lee, H.K., 2015. Coal bottom ash in field of civil engineering: a review of
advanced applications and environmental considerations. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 19,
1802e1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0282-7.
Kim, J.-H.J., Mook Lim, Y., Won, J.P., Park, H.G., 2010. Fire resistant behavior of newly
developed bottom-ash-based cementitious coating applied concrete tunnel
lining under RABT fire loading. Construct. Build. Mater. 24, 1984e1994. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2010.04.001.
Kirthika, S.K., Surya, M., Singh, S.K., 2019. Effect of clay in alternative fine aggregates
on performance of concrete. Construct. Build. Mater. 228, 116811. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116811.
Kockum, P.F., Lindqvist, J.E., 2016. Long-term performance of MSWI bottom ash in a
test road-construction. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 7, 38e49.
Kohno, K., Komatsu, H., 1986. Use of ground bottom ash and silica fume in mortar
and concrete. Spec. Publ. 91, 1279e1292. https://doi.org/10.14359/10122.
Kopp, O.C., 2018. Coal [WWW document]. Encycl. Br. Inc. URL. https://www.
britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel. accessed 12.12.18.
Kurama, H., Kaya, M., 2008. Usage of coal combustion bottom ash in concrete
mixture. Construct. Build. Mater. 22, 1922e1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2007.07.008.
_
Kurama, H., Topçu, I.B., Karakurt, C., 2009. Properties of the autoclaved aerated
concrete produced from coal bottom ash. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209,
767e773. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMATPROTEC.2008.02.044.
Kusbiantoro, A., Hanani, A., Embong, R., 2019. Pozzolanic reactivity of coal bottom
ash after chemically pre-treated with sulfuric acid. In: Materials Science Forum.
Trans Tech Publications Ltd, pp. 212e216. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/MSF.947.212.
Latifi, N., Marto, A., A Rashid, A.S., Ling Jia Yii, J., 2015. Strength and physico-
chemical characteristics of fly ashebottom ash mixture. Arabian J. Sci. Eng.
40, 2447e2455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1647-4.
Lee, H.K., Kim, H.K., Hwang, E.A., 2010. Utilization of power plant bottom ash as
aggregates in fiber-reinforced cellular concrete. Waste Manag. 30, 274e284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2009.09.043.

ndez-Pereira, C., 2014.
Luna, Y., Arenas, C.G., Cornejo, A., Leiva, C., Vilches, L.F., Ferna
Recycling by-products from coal-fired power stations into different construc-
tion materials. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 5, 387e397. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40095-014-0120-6.
Majhi, R.K., Nayak, A.N., 2019. Properties of concrete incorporating coal fly ash and
coal bottom ash. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 100, 459e469. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40030-019-00374-y.
Maliki, A.I.F.A., Shahidan, S., Ali, N., Ramzi Hannan, N.I.R., Mohd Zuki, S.S.,
Ibrahim, M.H.W., Mohammad Azmi, M.A., Abdul Rahim, M., 2017. Compressive
and tensile strength for concrete containing coal bottom ash. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 271, 012055 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/271/1/012055.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M.F., Memon, S.A.,
Shahidan, S., 2019a. Effects of grinding process on the properties of the coal
bottom ash and cement paste. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 51, 1e13. https://doi.org/
10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2019.51.1.1.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M.F., Memon, S.A.,
Shahidan, S., Jaya, R.P., 2019b. Coal bottom ash as a sustainable supplementary
cementitious material for the concrete exposed to seawater. In: 5th Interna-
tional Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development
(EESD-2018). AIP Publishing, 020002. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115361.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M.F., Mudjanarko, S.W., 2019c.
Recycling of coal ash in concrete as a partial cementitious resource. Resources 8.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020099.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M.F., Putra Jaya, R., 2019d.
Short-term effects of sulphate and chloride on the concrete containing coal
bottom ash as supplementary cementitious material. Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J.
22, 515e522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2018.09.001.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Arshad, M.F., Ramadhansyah, P.J.,
2019e. Effects of ground coal bottom ash on the properties of concrete. J. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 14, 338e350.
Mangi, S.A., Ibrahim, M.H.W., Jamaluddin, N., Shahidan, S., Arshad, M.F.,
Memon, S.A., Jaya, R.P., Mudjanarko, S.W., Setiawan, M.I., 2018. Influence of
ground coal bottom ash on the properties of concrete. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng.
Technol. 9, 26e34. https://doi.org/10.30880/ijscet.2018.09.02.003.
Mehta, P.K., Monteiro, P.J.M., 2006. Concrete: Microstructures, Properties, and Ma-
terials, Third. ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1036/
0071462899.
Mene


ndez, E., Alvaro, A.M., Hern
andez, M.T., Parra, J.L., 2014. New methodology for
assessing the environmental burden of cement mortars with partial replace-
ment of coal bottom ash and fly ash. J. Environ. Manag. 133, 275e283. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.009.
Mene
ndez, E., Argiz, C., Sanju
an, M.A., 2020. Evolution of damage due to sulphate
attack in cement mortar with and without ground coal bottom ash. In:
Mene
ndez, Esperanza, Baroghel-Bouny, V. (Eds.), External Sulphate Attack e
Field Aspects and Lab Tests. RILEM, Madrid, pp. 153e163. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-20331-3_12.
Mene
ndez, E., Argiz, C., Sanju

2019. Chloride induced reinforcement
an, M.A.,
corrosion in mortars containing coal bottom ash and coal fly ash. Materials 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12121933, 1933.
 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Morse, E., Turgeon, A., 2012. Coal [WWW document]. Natl. Geogr. Soc. URL https://
www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coal/ accessed 12.12.18.
Mousa, A., 2015. A business approach for transformation to sustainable construc-
tion: an implementation on a developing country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101,
9e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.007.
Mousa, A., Mahgoub, M., Hussein, M., 2018. Lightweight concrete in America:
presence and challenges. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 15, 131e144. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.007.
Muthusamy, K., Mohamad Hafizuddin, R., Mat Yahaya, F., Sulaiman, M.A., Syed
Mohsin, S.M., Tukimat, N.N., Omar, R., Chin, S.C., 2018. Compressive strength
performance of OPS lightweight aggregate concrete containing coal bottom ash
as partial fine aggregate replacement. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering. Institute of Physics Publishing. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012099.
Naganathan, S., Mohamed, A.Y.O., Mustapha, K.N., 2015. Performance of bricks
made using fly ash and bottom ash. Construct. Build. Mater. 96, 576e580.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.068.
Ng, H.J., Al Bakri Abdullah, M.M., Tan, S.J., Sandu, A.V., Hussin, K., 2018. Character-
isation and understanding of Portland cement mortar with different sizes of
bottom ash. Adv. Cement Res. 30, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.17.00076.
Ngohpok, C., Sata, V., Satiennam, T., Klungboonkrong, P., Chindaprasirt, P., 2018.
Mechanical properties, thermal conductivity, and sound absorption of pervious
concrete containing recycled concrete and bottom ash aggregates. KSCE J. Civ.
Eng. 22, 1369e1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-0144-6.
Nguyen, H.T., Ngoc Hoa, N., Vo Thi Ha Quyen, P., Ngoc Kim Tuyen, N., Vu Thao
Anh, T., Trung Kien, P., 2018. Engineering properties of lightweight geopolymer
synthesized from coal bottom ash and rice husk ash. In: AIP Conference Pro-
ceedings 1954. American Institute of Physics, pp. 40006e40009. https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.5033409.
Nguyen, H.T., Trung Kien, P.A.B., Promentilla, M., 2017. Development of geopolymer-
based materials from coal bottom ash and rice husk ash with sodium silicate
solutions. In: Proceedings of the 4th Congre s International de Ge

otechnique -
Ouvrages -Structures. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-6713-6_40.
Nisnevich, M., 1997. Improving lightweight concrete with bottom ash. Concr. Int. 19,
56e60.
Ong, S.K., Mo, K.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., Ling, T.C., 2018. Valorization of
wastes from power plant, steel-making and palm oil industries as partial sand
substitute in concrete. Waste Biomass Valorization 9, 1645e1654. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-9937-6.
Onprom, P., Chaimoon, K., Cheerarot, R., 2015. Influence of bottom ash replacements
as fine aggregate on the property of cellular concrete with various foam con-
tents. Ann. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 1e11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/381704.
Oruji, S., Brake, N.A., Nalluri, L., Guduru, R.K., 2017. Strength activity and micro-
structure of blended ultra-fine coal bottom ash-cement mortar. Construct.
Build. Mater. 153, 317e326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.088.
Paija, N., Kolay, P.K., Mohanty, M., Kumar, S., 2020. Ground bottom ash application
for conventional mortar and geopolymer paste. J. Hazardous Toxic Radioact.
Waste 24, 04019025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)hz.2153-5515.0000466.
Panesar, D.K., 2019. Supplementary cementing materials. In: Developments in the
Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete. Elsevier, pp. 55e85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102616-8.00003-4.
Pant, A., Datta, M., Ramana, G.V., 2019. Bottom ash as a backfill material in rein-
forced soil structures. Geotext. Geomembranes 47, 514e521. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.01.018.
Portland Cement Association, 2018. Ultra-high performance concrete [WWW
Document]. Portl. Cem. Assoc. URL https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-
technology/concrete-design-production/ultra-high-performance-concrete
accessed 1.18.19.
Pyo, S., Abate, S.Y., Kim, H.K., 2018. Abrasion resistance of ultra high performance
concrete incorporating coarser aggregate. Construct. Build. Mater. 165, 11e16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.036.
Pyo, S., Kim, H.-K., 2017. Fresh and hardened properties of ultra-high performance
concrete incorporating coal bottom ash and slag powder. Construct. Build.
Mater. 131, 459e466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.109.
Pyo, S., Koh, T., Tafesse, M., Kim, H.K., 2019. Chloride-induced corrosion of steel fiber
near the surface of ultra-high performance concrete and its effect on flexural
behavior with various thickness. Construct. Build. Mater. 224, 206e213. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.063.
Rafieizonooz, M., Mirza, J., Salim, M.R., Hussin, M.W., Khankhaje, E., 2016. Investi-
gation of coal bottom ash and fly ash in concrete as replacement for sand and
cement. Construct. Build. Mater. 116, 15e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.04.080.
Rafieizonooz, M., Salim, M.R., Mirza, J., Hussin, M.W., Salmiati, Khan, R.,
Khankhaje, E., 2017. Toxicity characteristics and durability of concrete con-
taining coal ash as substitute for cement and river sand. Construct. Build. Mater.
143, 234e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.151.
Ramsey, A.B., Faiia, A.M., Szynkiewicz, A., 2019. Eight years after the coal ash spill e
fate of trace metals in the contaminated river sediments near Kingston, eastern
Tennessee. Appl. Geochem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.03.008.
Reijnders, L., 2005. Disposal, uses and treatments of combustion ashes: a review.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.06.007.
Sadon, S.N., Beddu, S., Naganathan, S., Mohd Kamal, N.L., Hassan, H., 2017. Coal
bottom ash as sustainable material in concrete - a review. Indian J. Sci. Technol.
10, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i36/114595.
25
Sanju

Quintana, B., Argiz, C., 2019. Coal bottom ash natural radioactivity in
an, M.A.,
building materials. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 319, 91e99. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10967-018-6251-0.
Santa, R.A.A.B., Soares, C., Riella, H.G., 2017. Geopolymers obtained from bottom ash
as source of aluminosilicate cured at room temperature. Construct. Build. Mater.
157, 459e466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.111.
Sata, V., Sathonsaowaphak, A., Chindaprasirt, P., 2012. Resistance of lignite bottom
ash geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cement Concr.
Compos. 34, 700e708. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2012.01.010.
Siddique, R., Aggarwal, P., Aggarwal, Y., 2012. Influence of water/powder ratio on
strength properties of self-compacting concrete containing coal fly ash and
bottom ash. Construct. Build. Mater. 29, 73e81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.CONBUILDMAT.2011.10.035.
Siddique, R., Kunal, 2015. Design and development of self-compacting concrete
made with coal bottom ash. J. Sustain. Cem. Mater. 4, 225e237. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21650373.2015.1004138.
Singh, B., 2018. Rice husk ash. In: Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials
in Concrete. Elsevier, pp. 417e460. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102156-
9.00013-4.
Singh, D., Singh, Jaspal, Singh, Jagmeet, 2017. Sustainable management of sugarcane
bagasse ash and coal bottom ash in concrete. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 16,
295e300.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., 2016. Effect of coal bottom ash as partial replacement of
sand on workability and strength properties of concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
620e630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.001.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., 2015a. Properties of concrete containing high volumes of
coal bottom ash as fine aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 91, 269e278. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.026.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., 2015b. Effect of low-calcium coal bottom ash as fine
aggregate on microstructure and properties of concrete. ACI Mater. J. 112,
693e703. https://doi.org/10.14359/51687753.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., 2014a. Compressive strength, drying shrinkage and chemical
resistance of concrete incorporating coal bottom ash as partial or total
replacement of sand. Construct. Build. Mater. 68, 39e48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.034.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., 2014b. Strength properties and micro-structural properties
of concrete containing coal bottom ash as partial replacement of fine aggregate.
Construct. Build. Mater. 50, 246e256. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.09.026.
Singh, M., Siddique, R., Karim, A.-M., Belarbi, R., 2016. Durability properties of
concrete made with high volumes of low-calcium coal bottom ash as a
replacement of two types of sand. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28, 04015175 https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001464.
Singh, N., Arya, S., Mithul Raj, M., 2019a. Assessing the performance of self-
compacting concrete made with recycled concrete aggregates and coal Bot-
tom ash using ultrasonic pulse velocity. In: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering.
Springer, pp. 169e178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7017-5_19.
Singh, N., M, M., Arya, S., 2019b. Utilization of coal bottom ash in recycled concrete
aggregates based self compacting concrete blended with metakaolin. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 240e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.044.
Soofinajafi, M., Shafigh, P., Akashah, F.W., Bin Mahmud, H., 2016. Mechanical
properties of high strength concrete containing coal bottom ash and oil-palm
boiler clinker as fine aggregates. In: MATEC Web of Conferences, p. 34.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600034.
Thandavamoorthy, T.S., 2015. Feasibility of making concrete using lignite coal bot-
tom ash as fine aggregate. Arch. Civ. Eng. 61, 19e30. https://doi.org/10.1515/ace-
2015-0022.
Thomas, M., 2011. The effect of supplementary cementing materials on alkali-silica
reaction: a review. Cement Concr. Res. 41, 1224e1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2010.11.003.
_
Topçu, I.B., Toprak, M.U., Uygunog lu, T., 2014. Durability and microstructure char-
acteristics of alkali activated coal bottom ash geopolymer cement. J. Clean. Prod.
81, 211e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.037.
Torkittikul, P., Nochaiya, T., Wongkeo, W., Chaipanich, A., 2017. Utilization of coal
bottom ash to improve thermal insulation of construction material. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manag. 19, 305e317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0419-2.
Tsakiridis, P.E., Samouhos, M., Peppas, A., Katsiotis, N.S., Velissariou, D.,
Katsiotis, M.S., Beazi, M., 2016. Silico-aluminous bottom ash valorisation in
cement clinker production: synthesis, characterization and hydration proper-
ties. Construct. Build. Mater. 126, 673e681. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.09.089.
Usmen, M.A., Head, W.J., Moulton, L.K., 1983. Use of coal-associated wastes in low-
volume roads. In: Low-Volume Roads: Third International Conference. Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington DC, USA, pp. 268e277.
Vinai, R., Lawane, A., Minane, J.R., Pantet, A., 2017. Utilisation of coal bottom ash for
the production of compressed building blocks in Sub-Saharan countries. In:
Proceedings of EuroCoalAsh 2017: Innovations in Power Plant Technology and
CCP Utilization. Brno University of Technology, Belfast.
Wang, Y., Zhao, L., Otto, A., Robinius, M., Stolten, D., 2017. A review of post-
combustion CO2 capture technologies from coal-fired power plants. Energy
Procedia 114, 650e665. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.1209.
Wu, M.H., Lin, C.L., Huang, W.C., Chen, J.W., 2016. Characteristics of pervious con-
crete using incineration bottom ash in place of sandstone graded material.
Construct. Build. Mater. 111, 618e624. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.02.146.
26 S. Gooi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 268 (2020) 121752
Wyrzykowski, M., Ghourchian, S., Sinthupinyo, S., Chitvoranund, N., Chintana, T.,
Lura, P., 2016. Internal curing of high performance mortars with bottom ash.
Cement Concr. Compos. 71, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2016.04.009.
Xiao, R., Ma, Y., Jiang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, B., He, Q., 2020a.
Strength, microstructure, efflorescence behavior and environmental impacts of
waste glass geopolymers cured at ambient temperature. J. Clean. Prod. 252,
119610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119610.
Xiao, R., Polaczyk, P., Zhang, M., Jiang, X., Zhang, Y., Huang, B., Hu, W., 2020b.
Evaluation of glass powder-based geopolymer stabilized road bases containing
recycled waste glass aggregate. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2674,
22e32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119898695.
Xie, T., Ozbakkaloglu, T., 2015. Behavior of low-calcium fly and bottom ash-based
geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Ceram. Int. 41,
5945e5958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.01.031.
Yoon, J.Y., Lee, J.Y., Kim, J.H., 2019. Use of raw-state bottom ash for aggregates in
construction materials. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 21, 838e849. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00841-5.
Youcai, Z., Sheng, H., 2017. Recycling technologies and pollution potential for
contaminated construction and demolition waste in recycling processes. In:
Pollution Control and Resource Recovery. Elsevier, pp. 195e331. https://doi.org/
10.1016/b978-0-12-811754-5.00008-7.
Zhang, B., Poon, C.S., 2015. Use of furnace bottom ash for producing lightweight
aggregate concrete with thermal insulation properties. J. Clean. Prod. 99,
94e100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.007.
Zhang, H., 2011. Heat-insulating materials and sound-absorbing materials. In:
Zhang, H. (Ed.), Building Materials in Civil Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 304e423.
https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845699567.304.
Zidan, A.H., Mousa, A., Mahgoub, M., 2013. A survey-based vision for restructuring
the concrete business in new residential communities in Egypt. Ind. Syst. Eng.
Rev. 1, 162e172.