Buildings 13 00843 v3

buildings
Article
Feasibility of Using Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash in Partial
Replacement of Portland Cement Clinker
Sâmara França 1 , Leila Nóbrega Sousa 2 , Sérgio Luiz Costa Saraiva 2 , Maria Cecília Novaes Firmo Ferreira 2 ,
Marcos Vinicio de Moura Solar Silva 3 , Romero César Gomes 4 , Conrado de Souza Rodrigues 1 ,
Maria Teresa Paulino Aguilar 5 and Augusto Cesar da Silva Bezerra 1,2, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte 30421-169, Brazil
2 Department of Transport Engineering, Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais,
3 Energy Company of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 30190-131, Brazil
4 Núcleo de Geotecnia, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto 35400-000, Brazil
5 Department of Materials and Construction Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais,
* Correspondence: augustobezerra@cefetmg.br; Tel.: +55-319-9388-6780
Abstract: This work presents a technical and economic study using sugar cane bagasse ash (SCBA) to
partially replace Portland cement clinker. To evaluate the technical viability, the replacement rates
of 10, 20, and 30% of Portland cement were used in the experiments. The ashes used were in the
following conditions: (i) as collected (AC), (ii) ground (G), and (iii) re-burnt and ground (RG). Three
composition parameters were used in the mortar mix procedures: (i) mix with water factor/fixed
binder in volume, (ii) mix with water factor/fixed binder in weight, and (iii) mix with the fixed
flow. After the technical feasibility analysis, the benefit of the substitutions and an analysis of the
relationship between cement consumption and the acquired compressive strength, correlating with
possible economic costs, were discussed. SCBA AC was not suitable for the partial replacement of
Citation: França, S.; Sousa, L.N.; Portland cement clinker. SCBA G presented a satisfactory performance and SCBA RG was the ash
Saraiva, S.L.C.; Ferreira, M.C.N.F.; that presented the best performance in the partial replacement of Portland cement clinker. For the
Silva, M.V.d.M.S.; Gomes, R.C.; same levels of compressive strength, the consumption of Portland cement per cubic meter of concrete
Rodrigues, C.d.S.; Aguilar, M.T.P.; reduced; from this, the cost of concrete and mortar could be reduced by 8%, with the ash having the
Bezerra, A.C.d.S. Feasibility of Using
same value as cement. Furthermore, the use of SCBA RG at 30% inhibited the alkali–silica reaction
Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash in Partial
(ASR) in concretes with a reactive basalt and quartzite aggregate. SCBA G (20 and 30%) and SCBA
Replacement of Portland Cement
RG (10 and 20%) inhibited the ASR in concretes with a reactive basalt aggregate and reduced the
Clinker. Buildings 2023, 13, 843.
expandability in concretes with a reactive quartzite aggregate. Another point to highlight was the
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings13040843
durability shown by the cements with SCBA, which, 900 days after the accelerated test of expansion
by the alkali–aggregate reaction, maintained high levels of flexural strength when compared to the
Academic Editor: Elena Ferretti
results obtained before the accelerated test of expansion. The present work concluded that using
Received: 30 January 2023 sugar cane bagasse ash to replace Portland cement is feasible from a technical, environmental, and
Revised: 17 March 2023 economic perspective.
Accepted: 20 March 2023
Published: 23 March 2023 Keywords: sugar cane bagasse ash; supplementary cement material; eco-friendly Portland cement;
sustainability
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
1. Introduction
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and Portland cement is the most significant manufactured product on Earth by weight.
conditions of the Creative Commons Combined with water and aggregates, it forms cement-based materials (e.g., concrete). It
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// is the second-most-used material on the planet after water [1]. In 2021, 4.4 billon tons of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Portland cement were produced worldwide, with 3.7 billion tons of Portland clinker. In
4.0/). 2021, Brazil produced approximately 55 million tons of cement [2].
Buildings 2023, 13, 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040843 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2023, 13, 843 2 of 21
The manufacture of 1 ton of cement would produce approximately 1 ton of CO2 [3],
which can be a problem due to its high consumption. Supplementary cement materials
(SCM) are often employed to reduce the environmental impact of cement [4,5]. Scrivener
et al. say cement contains only about 20% of SCMs substituting Portland cement clinker [1].
There are several SCMs around the world, including: fine limestone [6,7], granulated blast-
furnace slags (GBFS) [8–10], coal fly ashes (FA) [11], silica fume [11], calcined clays [12,13],
rice husk ash [14], sugar cane bagasse ash [14], and tailings [15–17]. Brazilian standards
allow up to 75% of SCMs, in some cases, such as GBFS [18]. However, there is not enough
slag generation in Brazil to supply Portland cement production. It is estimated that the
global iron slag output in 2021 was 340 to 410 million tons [2], i.e., 10% of Portland clinker
production, and not all of the products produced are suitable for producing cement. The
possibility of using waste to replace traditional Portland cement-based construction ma-
terials promotes the mitigation of environmental impacts [10,19]. It contributes to the
fulfillment of Sustainable Development Goal 12 (SDG-12: Responsible Consumption and
Production), related to substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduc-
tion, recycling, and reuse [20]. In addition, when added to Portland cement, supplementary
cementitious materials improve the properties of mortars and concretes, such as increased
strength [21,22], reduction of Portland cement consumption [23–26], reduced hydration
heat [5,27], reduced carbonation [5,27], increased chemical resistance and durability [28],
and increased fire resistance [11].
Scrivener et al. believe that GBFS, FA, waste glass, and silica fume cannot meet the
demand for SCMs to produce cement, and claim that ash from agricultural production
would not be enough either [1]. Among the residues from agrarian production used as
SCM is sugar cane bagasse ash (SCBA) generated from burning to produce bioelectricity.
Currently, the SCBA is not being used in the United States or Europe and is presently
being landfilled [4]. However, in countries such as Brazil, India, and China that have
high sugar cane production [29], SCBAs are not intended to fertilize crops, so these ashes
with adequate characteristics can be used as SCMs. A Portland cement clinker partial
replacement with SCBA can improve the composite’s mechanical properties and support
a more sustainable material [30]. It is essential to emphasise that, even as the bagasse
combustion releases CO2 , the CO2 emission total is basically zero when the full cycle
is deemed because photosynthesis restores the burned biomass in the next sugar cane
harvest [30,31].
Due to the restricted use of SCBA as SCM, data regarding its application as a substitute
for Portland cement in concrete are not widely acknowledged [4]; however, there are several
studies on the mechanical behavior of compounds from Portland cement with a partial
replacement by SCBA and the mechanical and thermal treatment of SCBA [31–33]. How-
ever, no reports on the technical feasibility combined with economic and environmental
feasibility were found. This study aimed to evaluate the processing of SCBA to replace
Portland cement clinker in the production of mortars and concrete. Still on the objective
of the study, it is expected to evaluate the influence of ash processing in the production of
mortars in different dosages, in the physical and mechanical properties, in the durability,
and in the economic viability.
2. Materials and Methods

To carry out the present work, SCBA was collected in an industry in Alto Paranaíba
and Triângulo Mineiro’s mesoregion in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Cogeneration
boilers from sugar and alcohol plants generally have an electrostatic precipitator to collect
the flying SCBA and a hopper to collect the ashes that are deposited on the bottom [34];
the SCBA used in this work was collected by the electrostatic precipitator. The SCBA
was kiln-dried at 100 ± 5 ◦ C until dough consistency and was processed by grinding and
blasting. The grinding was carried out in a planetary mill in 500 mL vessels and 16 zirconia
oxide spheres with a diameter of 10 mm for 10 min at 300 rpm. Grinding was performed
every 2 min up to 12 min, and the best grinding occurred in 10 min [35,36]. The adequate
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 3 of 21
burning of the bagasse is at a temperature of 600 ◦ C with a burning level of 3 h and a

heating rate of 10 ◦ C/min, and the bagasse was pre-burned at 350 ◦ C for 3 h [37]. As the
bagasse ash was already used in this work, the pre-firing step was suppressed, with only
the ash burning in an electric resistance oven with forced air circulation.
The characterization tests were selected to characterize the ashes, mainly regarding the
chemical composition, morphology, and particle size. After processing, the 3 types of SCBA
were characterized, the SCBA as it was collected in the industry (SCBA AC), the ground
SCBA (SCBA G), and the reburning and ground SCBA (SCBA RG). SCBA AC, G, and RG
were characterized by images obtained by conventional photographic equipment, X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy
(SEM), loss on ignition (LOI) [38], laser particle size (LG), dry bulk density, pozzolanic index
with Portland cement [39], and pozzolanicity using the modified Chapelle method [40].
The SEM examinations were performed with magnification from 15 to 30,000 times
variable pressure, BSE (backscattered electron) detector, and an accelerating voltage of
15 kV [30,36,41,42]. The XRD measurements were made with continuous scanning mode
and a 2θ of 5◦ that changed until 90◦ , at 2◦ every minute, utilizing a copper X-ray tube with
40 kV accelerating voltage and a 30 mA current [17,30,42,43]. XRF was performed with
atmospheric air and a collimator of 10 mm [30,42]. The LG was performed in water, not
including a dispersive liquid, with ultrasounds utilized for one minute and an obscuration
of 10% [30,42].
The pozzolanicity of the SCBA was evaluated according to NBR 5752 [39] and NBR
15895 [40]. The NBR 5752 [39] prescribes for two mortars to be prepared: (i) mortar Type I
should contain Portland cement only; and (ii) mortar Type II has 35% of the total volume of
cement replaced by the pozzolanic material. Three 50 mm × 100 mm cylindrical specimens
were manufactured for each type of mortar. The initial and final setting times of Portland
cement with SCBA were determined according to NBR NM 65 [44].
The ashes were used to substitute reference Portland cement in the percentages of
10, 20, and 30% in volume. For produced mortar, 624 g of Portland cement and 1872 g of
Brazilian standard sand were used [45], i.e., proportion of 1:3 (cement:sand). The sand was
divided into four granulometric fractions per dosage [46]. The binder used was reference
Portland cement, in the Brazilian standard, called high initial strength cement or V-type
cement, produced with Portland cement clinker (~95 wt%) and gypsum (~5 wt%), trying
to represent a cement not including additions [18], comparable to CEM I of the European
standard EN 197-1 [47], which permits until 5% of minor additional constituents.
Three dosing conditions were used for the production of mortars: (i) mix with con-
stant water/binder ratio in volume, that is, constant water consumption (300 mL), which
represents a constant water/binder ratio in volume, where the weight of the binder is
the sum of the weight of Portland cement and SCBA; (ii) constant water/binder ratio in
weight (w/b = 0.48); (iii) fixed workability (water/ binder ratio in variable weight and
volume) represented by the opening diameter of the mortar of 225 mm in the flow table test.
For each proportion, 5 cylindrical specimens of 50 mm diameter by 100 mm height were
molded for the compression test, and 3 prismatic specimens of 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm
for flexural strength test. For the compressive strength test, the cylindrical specimens had
their base and top surfaces rectified. Compressive strength was determined at 3, 7, 28, and
91 days; and flexural strength was determined at 28 days. An EMIC DL 30000 universal
testing machine and the software TESC and Vmaq were used for the mechanical tests, with
an increasing stress rate of 0.25 MPa/s for the compression test and load rate of 50 N/s for
the flexural test [17,45,48].
The water absorption and dry bulk density were performed according to NBR 9778 [49].
For this, the weights of the oven-dry, saturated surface-dry sample in air, and saturated test
samples immersed in water were measured. The water absorption and dry bulk density
were calculated according to the following equations:
msat − md
Water absorption(%) = 100 (1)
md
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 % = 𝑚 − 𝑚 100
% = 100 (1)
(1)
𝑚
𝑚
g 𝑚
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦,
𝐵𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑑𝑟𝑦 g
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑑𝑟𝑦 =
=
𝑚 𝜌
𝑚 𝜌
(2)
(2)
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 cm
cm 𝑚 −
𝑚 −𝑚 4 of 21
where 𝑚
where 𝑚 is the
is the saturated
saturated weightweight of of surface-dry
surface-dry samplesample in in air
air (g),
(g), 𝑚 𝑚 is is the
the weight
weight of of
oven-dried sample
oven-dried sample in in air
air (g),
(g), 𝑚 𝑚 is is the
the Bulk
saturated
saturated weight
density,weight
dry
g
immersed
immersed
=
m in water
din water
ρ
(g), and
(g), and ρ ρ isis (2)
cm 3 m − m
the density of water = 1
the density of water = 1 g/cm3. g/cm 3 . sat i
A durability
A durabilitywhere
parameter chosen
msat is chosen
parameter to evaluate
the saturated
to evaluate mortars
weight mortars withsample
of surface-dry
with SCBA in
SCBA was
was the
air the alkali–silica
md is the weight of
(g), alkali–silica
reaction (ASR) oven-dried
(ASR) expandability. sample
expandability. The in air (g),
The efficiency
efficiencym i of SCBA AC preventing expansion(g),
is the saturated weight immersed in water dueandtoρ is the
reaction of SCBA AC preventing expansion due to
density of water = 1 g/cm3 .
ASR was
ASR was evaluated
evaluated by by the
the accelerated
accelerated method method of of expandability
expandability with with mortar
mortar bars bars made
made
A durability parameter chosen to evaluate mortars with SCBA was the alkali–silica
with two
with two potentially
potentially reactive
reactive
reaction
aggregates
(ASR)aggregates
expandability.
[50,51].
[50,51].
The efficiency of SCBA AC preventing expansion due to ASR
To choose the
To choose the waspotentially
potentially
evaluated by reactive
reactive aggregates,
aggregates,
the accelerated method3 3 of
aggregates
aggregates
expandability were
were tested:
withtested:
mortar(i) (i)
barsBrazilian
Brazilian
made with two
standard sand
standard sand [46];
[46]; (ii) quartzite
quartzite
potentially
(ii) reactive remaining
aggregatesfrom
remaining from
[50,51].the construction
the construction of of the
the Jaguara
Jaguara Hydroe-
Hydroe-
lectric Plant
lectric Plant (Sacramento
(Sacramento To choose
City,the
City, potentially
Minas
Minas Gerais,
Gerais, reactive aggregates,
Brazil);
Brazil); (iii)3basalt
and (iii)
and aggregates
basalt were tested:
remaining
remaining from(i)the
from Brazilian
the
construction of standard
of the
the Nova
Nova Pontesand [46]; (ii)
Ponte Hydroelectric quartzite
Hydroelectric Plant remaining
Plant (Nova from
(Nova Ponte the construction
Ponte City,
City, Minas of
Minas Gerais,the Jaguara
Bra-Hydro-
Gerais, Bra-
construction electric Plant (Sacramento City, Minas Gerais, Brazil); and (iii) basalt remaining from the
zil). The
zil). The quartzite
quartzite and
and basalt
basalt deposits
deposits can be be seen
seen in in Figures
Figures 11 andand 2. The The choice
choice of of Brazil-
construction of the Novacan Ponte Hydroelectric Plant (Nova2. Ponte City, Minas Brazil-
Gerais, Brazil).
ian standard sand
ian standard sand was
was
The due to
due toand
quartzite the possibility
thebasalt
possibility
depositsof of reproducibility
canreproducibility
be seen in Figures and
and repeatability
repeatability
1 and 2. The choiceof ofofthe
the
Brazilian
tests. With natural
tests. With natural river sand,
river sand,
standard sand was the reproducibility
the due
reproducibility
to the possibility and repeatability
andofrepeatability
reproducibility of the
ofand tests
therepeatabilitywould
tests wouldofbe be
the tests.
impaired.
impaired. With natural river sand, the reproducibility and repeatability of the tests would be impaired.
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Quartzite
QuartziteFigure
deposit.
deposit.
1. Quartzite deposit.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Basalt
Basalt deposit.
deposit.
Figure 2. Basalt deposit.
Quartzite and
Quartzite and basalt
basalt wereand
Quartzite
were collected in coarse
basalt were
collected in coarse aggregate
collected size
in coarsesize
aggregate (Figure
aggregate
(Figure 3).
size3). For the
(Figure
For the mortar
3). mortar
For the mortar
prism accelerated
prism prism accelerated
accelerated expandability expandability
expandability test
test (detailed test (detailed
(detailed below),
below), the below),
the quartzitethe quartzite
quartzite and
and basaltand basalt
basalt fragments
fragmentsfragments
had to be crushed and sieved to meet the granulometric requirements [50,52]. Figures 4–6
show Brazilian standard sand, quartzite sand, and basalt sand.
3, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
23, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
had to be crushed and sieved to meet the granulometric requirements [50,52]. Figures 4–
had to be crushed and sieved to meet the granulometric requirements [50,52]. Figures 4–
6 show
Buildings 2023, 13, Brazilian standard sand, quartzite sand, and basalt sand.
843 5 of 21
had
6 show Brazilianhad to be crushed
standard and sieved
sand, quartzite to meet
sand, the
andthe granulometric
basalt sand. requirements [50,52]. Figures 4–
to be crushed and sieved to meet granulometric requirements [50,52]. Figures 4–
6 show Brazilian standard sand, quartzite sand, and basalt sand.
6 show Brazilian standard sand, quartzite sand, and basalt sand.
(a) (b)
(a) (a) (b) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Quartzite rock fragment (a) and basalt rock fragment (b).
Figure
Figure
Figure 3. Quartzite 3. Quartzite
Quartzite
3. Quartzite
rock 3.
fragment rock
rock
(a)rock fragment
fragment
andfragment (a) and
(a) and
basalt rock and basalt rock fragment
basalt rock
fragment rock
(b). fragment (b).
(b).
Figure (a) basalt fragment (b).
(a) (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (a) (b)
(b) (b) (c)
(c) (c) (d)
(d) (d)
Figure
Figure 4. BrazilianFigure 4. Brazilian
standard sand: (a)standard sand:
#0.15 mm; (a)
(b)(a) #0.15 mm;(c)
#0.30 (b) #0.30mm;
mm; (c) #0.60 mm; and (d) #1.20 mm.
4. Brazilian standard sand: #0.15mm;
mm; (b)#0.60
#0.30 mm;and (d) #1.20
(c) #0.60 mm; mm.
and (d) #1.20 mm.
Figure 4. BrazilianFigure 4. Brazilian
standard sand: (a)standard sand:
#0.15 mm; (b)(a)#0.30
#0.15mm;
mm;(c)
(b)#0.60
#0.30mm;
mm;and
(c) #0.60 mm; mm.
(d) #1.20 and (d) #1.20 mm.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) (a)(b) (b) (c) (c) (d) (d) (e) (e)
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Quartzite (c)mm; (b) #0.30 mm;(d)
sand: (a) #0.15 (e)mm; and (e) #2.40
(c) #0.60 mm; (d) #1.20
Figure 5. QuartziteFigure
sand:5.(a)
mm.
Quartzite sand:
#0.15 mm; (b)(a) #0.15
#0.30 mm;(c)(b)
mm; #0.30mm;
#0.60 mm;(d)
(c)#1.20
#0.60 mm;
mm; (d)
and#1.20 mm; and (e) #2.40
(e) #2.40
mm.
Figure 5. Quartzite sand:5.(a) #0.15 mm; (b)(a)
#0.30 mm;
mm;(c)(b)#0.60
#0.30mm;
mm;(d)
(c) #1.20 mm;(d)
and (e) #2.40
mm. Figure Quartzite sand: #0.15 #0.60 mm; #1.20 mm; and (e) #2.40 mm.
mm.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
(a) (b) sand: (a) #0.15 mm;
Figure 6. Basalt (c) (b) #0.30 mm; (c)(d) (e) and (e) #2.40 mm.
#0.60 mm; (d) #1.20 mm;
(a) (b) sand: (a) #0.15 mm;
Figure 6. Basalt (c) (b) #0.30 mm; (c) (d) (e) and (e) #2.40 mm.
#0.60 mm; (d) #1.20 mm;
Figure 6. Basalt sand: (a) 6.
#0.15 mm; (b) (a)
#0.30 mm; (c)(b)
#0.60 mm; (d)(c)#1.20 mm; and (e) #2.40 mm.
Figure
Figure 6. Basalt sand: The Basalt
(a) sand:
preliminary #0.15
test mm;
to evaluate #0.30 mm;(d)
the reactivity #0.60 mm;aggregate
of mm;
the (d) #1.20 mm; and (e)that
indicated #2.40the
mm.Bra-
The#0.15 mm; (b) #0.30
preliminary test tomm; (c) #0.60
evaluate themm;
reactivity#1.20
of the and (e) #2.40
aggregate mm.
indicated that the Bra-
zilian standard sand is not reactive by ASR expandability. Differently, quartzite and basalt
zilianThe
The preliminary standard
test sand isthe
to evaluate
preliminary not reactive
testreactivity byofASR
to evaluate the expandability.
the aggregate
reactivity of Differently,
indicated
the quartzite
that the
aggregate Bra- and
indicated basalt
that the
are reactive
The preliminary test tobyby ASR (Figure
evaluate 7). As the
the reactivity objective
ofobjective is to evaluate
the aggregate indicatedthe inhibitory
that potential of
the Bra-potential
are
zilian standard sand reactive
is notstandard
Brazilian ASR
reactive by (Figure
sandASR 7). As the
expandability.
is not reactive by ASR is to
Differently, evaluate the
quartzite
expandability. inhibitory
and basalt
Differently, of
quartzite and
SCBAisin
zilian standard sand combating
not reactive ASR,
by ASRonly quartzite andDifferently,
expandability. basalt were quartzite
used for this
and evaluation.
basalt
SCBA
basalt
are reactive by ASR in
arecombating
(Figure 7). AsbyASR,
reactive ASR
the only quartzite
(Figure
objective 7). andobjective
basalt
Asevaluate
is to the were
the is toused forpotential
evaluate
inhibitory this
theevaluation.
inhibitory
of potential
are reactive by ASR
of (Figure
SCBA in 7). As theASR,
combating objective
only is to evaluate
quartzite and the were
basalt inhibitory
used potential
for this of
evaluation.
SCBA in combating ASR, only quartzite and basalt were used for this evaluation.
SCBA in combating ASR, only quartzite and basalt were used for this evaluation.
s 2023, 13, Buildings
x FOR PEER2023, 13, 843
REVIEW 6 of 23 6 of 21
Figure 7. Comparison between the expandability of mortars developed with Brazilian standard
Figure 7. Comparison between the expandability of mortars developed with Brazilian standard sand,
sand, quartzite, and basalt aggregates.
quartzite, and basalt aggregates.
To continue theTotests, three the

continue 25 ×tests,
25 × 285
threemm25 prismatic
× 25 × 285 specimens were molded
mm prismatic specimens for were molded
each proportion of materials, and they remained 24 h in the metal molds with
for each proportion of materials, and they remained 24 h in the metal molds with a a glass plate
over the molds.glass
The laboratory’s
plate over the temperature
molds. The and humidity were
laboratory’s controlled
temperature andduring
humiditymold- were controlled
ing at 24 ± 2 °Cduring
and above 50%, respectively.
◦ After 24 h, the specimens were demolded
molding at 24 ± 2 C and above 50%, respectively. After 24 h, the specimens were
and placed in ademolded
thermal tank regulated
and placed in a at 80 ± 2 tank
thermal °C, where
regulatedtheyatwere
80 ± submerged
2 ◦ C, where in theydis-
were submerged
tilled water for in
24distilled
h. After 24 h, the
water forspecimens
24 h. Afterwere24 h,retired from the were
the specimens waterretired
tank, and
from length
the water tank, and
readings were length
taken. readings
After thewerereading,
taken. theAfter
specimens were placed
the reading, into a thermal
the specimens tank into a thermal
were placed
regulated at 80tank°C, where they were ◦ immersed in sodium hydroxide
regulated at 80 C, where they were immersed in sodium hydroxide solution in the con- solution in the
centration predicted by the norm until the date of 32 days, and readings of expandability
concentration predicted by the norm until the date of 32 days, and readings of expandability
were performed were every 4 days. After
performed everythe expandability
4 days. After thereadings,
expandabilitythe specimens
readings, were dried
the specimens were dried
in an oven andinstored forand
an oven 900 stored
days, andfor 900tested
days,forand
flexural
testedtensile strength.
for flexural The
tensile mortarsThe mortars for
strength.
for the expandability test were developed
the expandability with a 1:2.25
test were developed linea (Table
with 1), and
1:2.25 line artificial
(Table 1), andsandartificial sand was
was produced produced
by crushing byand granulometric
crushing separationseparation
and granulometric of basalt and quartzite.
of basalt Mortars Mortars also
and quartzite.
also had specimens molded tomolded
had specimens assess flexural
to assessstrength
flexuralbefore
strengththebefore
expandability tests.
the expandability tests.
Proportions
Tableof1.materials
Table 1. Proportions usedofinmaterials
mortars.used in mortars.
Cementitious Consumption ofConsumption

Materials (g)of Materials (g)
CC = Cementitious
Composite Replacement Fine Aggregate Fine
(Basalt or Quartzite)
Aggregate (Basalt or Quartzite)
Composite Replacement
B = Basalt (%)
B = Basalt Cement
(%) Ash Cement Ash Particle Size Particle Size Water Water
= Quartzite Q = Quartzite 0.15 mm 0.300.15mmmm0.600.30mmmm1.20 0.60
mmmm2.40 1.20mmmm 2.40 mm
CB or CCQ 0 440.0 0.0 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
CCB or CCQ 0 440.0 0.0 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
10 396.0 28.0 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
CBA G or CCQ 10 396.0 28.0 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
20 352.0 56.0 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
SCBA G CCB SCBA G or CCQ
SCBA 30
G 308.020 84.0 352.0148.5 56.0 247.5
148.5 247.5 247.5247.5 99.0247.5 206.8 99.0
247.5 206.8
10 396.030 37.6 308.0148.5 84.0 247.5

148.5 247.5 247.5247.5 99.0247.5 206.8 99.0
247.5 206.8
B SCBA RG or
20 352.010 75.2 148.5
396.0 37.6 247.5
148.5 247.5
247.5 247.5247.5 99.0247.5 206.8 99.0 206.8
Q SCBA RG CCB SCBA RG30or CCQ 308.020 112.8 352.0
148.5 75.2 247.5
148.5 247.5
247.5 247.5247.5 99.0247.5 206.8 99.0 206.8
SCBA RG
30 308.0 112.8 148.5 247.5 247.5 247.5 99.0 206.8
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 7 of 21
3.3.Results
Results
InIn Figure
Figure 8, 8, it possible
it is is possible to observe
to observe images
images of SCBA,
of SCBA, showing
showing the difference
the difference in color
in color
and texture between SCBA AC, G, R, and RG. The SCBA processing has to alter the visual visual
and texture between SCBA AC, G, R, and RG. The SCBA processing has to alter the
appearanceand
appearance and alter
alter thethe density.
density. TheThe
SCBASCBA
AC,AC, M, and
M, and RG showed
RG showed a density
a density of 1.720,
of 1.720,
1.977,
1.977, and
and 2.653
2.653 g/cmg/cm 3 . 3.
(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 8. 8. SCBA
SCBA images:
images: (a) (a) SCBA
SCBA AC;AC; (b) SCBA
(b) SCBA G; (c)
G; and andSCBA
(c) SCBA
RG. RG.
InInFigure
Figure 9, 9,
it is
it possible to observe
is possible to observe images of SCBA
images obtained
of SCBA by SEM
obtained by at
SEMthe at
same
the same
magnification
magnification scale.
scale.In In
Figure 9a, 9a,
Figure it isitpossible to observe
is possible that that
to observe SCBA AC presents
SCBA a fibrous,
AC presents a fibrous,
spherical,
spherical,and and prismatic
prismatic structure,
structure, as shown
as shown in the
in lower-left corner
the lower-left of theofimage
corner as a as a
the image
spherical particle [30,53–57]. In Figure 9b, it can be seen that SCBA G has a reduced
spherical particle [30,53–57]. In Figure 9b, it can be seen that SCBA G has a reduced parti- particle
size. The fibrous structures have been comminuted; however, it is still possible to identify
cle size. The fibrous structures have been comminuted; however, it is still possible to iden-
the fiber’s presence in the reduced size example, on the right side of the image. In Figure 9c,
tify the fiber’s presence in the reduced size example, on the right side of the image. In
it is not possible to verify the fiber’s existence in the SCBA RG.
Figure
The 9c, it is chemical
SCBA’s not possible to verifyasthe
composition fiber’s existence
a function in theoxides
of the principal SCBAbyRG.XRF is shown
in Table 2. SCBA presented SiO2 as the principal oxide, followed by Al2 O3 and Fe2 O3 [58].
The sum of these three oxides for SCBA G and RG is 41.75 and 80.26%, respectively, in
agreement with previous results [32,37]. Comparing the values obtained for Na2 O and K2 O,
it is noticed that SCBA G and RG present higher values than cement, indicating that the
replacement of cement by ash will increase the system’s alkalis, which may contribute to the
occurrence of an alkali-aggregated reaction. Table 3 shows the particle diameters of SCBA
G and SCBA RG obtained by laser granulometry. The results found are consistent with
the literature [59–61]. It is noticed that SCBA RG presented smaller dimensions, leading to
better performances in cementitious composites [17,55,62]. SCBA G and SCBA RG present
smaller particle sizes than the reference Portland cement and with Daverage of the particles
smaller than 13.53 µm for SCBA G and 11.88 µm for SCBA RG. Particle size distribution
showed that the samples satisfy the ASTM C618 [38] fineness criterion for coal fly ash
and raw or calcined natural pozzolan, with less than 34% of the material retained on a
0.045 mm or 45 µm sieve. Brazilian Standard NBR 12653 [63] prescribes that the material, to
be pozzolanic, must be presented with less than 20% of the material retained on a 0.045 mm
sieve. The reference Portland cement’s granulometry is also presented, and we can see the
proximity of the results between the binders [17]. The results of the chemical analysis of
SCBA AC were not presented, as the grinding process is necessary to perform the analysis.
The granulometry result was also not presented because the granulometry presented by
SCBA AC was higher than the limit (a) of the equipment used for the determination by the
laser diffraction technique. The re-burning significantly reduced the loss on ignition (LOI)
of the SCBA [64].
In Figure 9, it is possible to observe images of SCBA obtained by SEM at the same
magnification scale. In Figure 9a, it is possible to observe that SCBA AC presents a fibrous,
spherical, and prismatic structure, as shown in the lower-left corner of the image as a
spherical particle [30,53–57]. In Figure 9b, it can be seen that SCBA G has a reduced parti-
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 cle size. The fibrous structures have been comminuted; however, it is still possible to iden- 8 of 21
tify the fiber’s presence in the reduced size example, on the right side of the image. In
Figure 9c, it is not possible to verify the fiber’s existence in the SCBA RG.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure
Figure9.9.SEM
SEMofof
SCBAs: (a) (a)
SCBAs: SCBA AC;AC;
SCBA (b) SCBA G; (c)G;
(b) SCBA SCBA RG. RG.
(c) SCBA
The SCBA’s chemical composition as a function of the principal oxides by XRF is

shown in Table 2. SCBA presented SiO2 as the principal oxide, followed by Al2O3 and
Fe2O3 [58]. The sum of these three oxides for SCBA G and RG is 41.75 and 80.26%, respec-
tively, in agreement with previous results [32,37]. Comparing the values obtained for
Na2O and K2O, it is noticed that SCBA G and RG present higher values than cement, in-
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 9 of 21
Table 2. Chemical composition by XRF, particle density, and particle size distribution of the samples.
Portland Cement SCBA G SCBA RG

Chemical composition by XRF (wt%)
SiO2 6.8 21.1 40.5
Al2 O3 4.9 13.0 24.8
Fe2 O3 4.5 7.7 15.0
CaO 78.3 2.0 3.8
MgO 1.5 1.2 2.3
TiO2 0.2 2.3 4.4
P2 O5 0.0 1.0 1.6
Na2 O 0.1 0.2 0.4
K2 O 0.4 2.2 3.7
MnO 0 0.1 0.1
LOI 3.4 49.2 3.3
Particle density (g/cm3 ) 3.106 1.977 2.653
Particle size distribution
D10 (µm) 2.46 2.12 1.39
D50 (µm) 11.70 9.58 8.47
D90 (µm) 27.50 32.29 28.62
Daverage (µm) 13.66 13.53 11.88
Table 3. Pozzolanic activity of SCBA.
Compressive Pozzolanic
Mortar Flow (mm) Water (g)
Strength (MPa) Activity (%)
Type I “A” (Portland cement) 225.0 162.7 43.08 100.0
Type II “B” (SCBA G 35%) 225.0 168.1 35.93 83.4
Type II “C” (SCBA RG 35%) 225.0 179.4 38.17 88.6
From the diffractograms of SCBA G and RG, it was possible to identify the peaks
of crystallinity of quartz (Crystallography Open Database (COD) 9013321) [65], alumina
(Crystallography Open Database (COD) 1528427) [66], and hematite (Crystallography
Open Database (COD) 1011240) [67] (Figure 10). Thus, it can be said that part of the oxides
of silicon, aluminum, and iron detected in XRF is presented in a crystalline form. The
SiO2 found in XRD is crystalline; however, SiO2 can be crystalline or amorphous [30].
The detected quartz is mainly due to soil contamination [32,68]. The amorphous halo
(2θ = 20–30◦ ) of the SCBA G diffractogram was higher due to the material with incomplete
burning [32]. The re-burning was influential in the removal of organic material [69].
To evaluate the pozzolanicity of a material, a mortar with a 35% cement replacement
(Type I) by the material must obtain at least 75% of the compressive strength of the mortar
without replacement (Type II) [39]. Thus, the SCBA G and RG analyzed can be considered
pozzolanic once, with an average compressive strength of 35.93 and 38.17 MPa, reaching
83.40 and 88.6% of the average compressive strength found for the samples prepared
without the use of ash (average of 43.08 MPa), respectively (Table 3). For the same flow, the
mortars with SCBA (B and C) demanded more water than the reference mortar (A), a trend
in the use of SCBA [58]. According to NBR 15895 [40], Chapelle’s test modified for SCBA
G and RG indicates 361 and 382 mg/g of Ca(OH)2 fixation, respectively. For samples to
have pozzolanicity, they must be fixed with at least 330 mg of Ca(OH)2 . In general, SCBA
G and SCBA RG can be considered pozzolanic, as with SCBA studied by other authors [70].
Grinding and re-firing improved SCBA’s pozzolanic activity [71].
The flow table, cement setting time, dry bulk density, and water absorption results of
the mortars dosed with a trace with water/binder factor fixed in volume (w/b in equal
volume 0.48) are presented in Table 4. The SCBA AC significantly reduced the workability
of the mortars. SCBA G and RG reduced mortar workability [55,72,73], except SCBA G
30%. It is believed that the inclusion of SCBA AC mortar mixes increased both the viscosity
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 10 of 21
and yield stress, which caused a reduction in fluidity [74]. The mortar setting time did
not significantly decrease with SCBA G and SCBA RG; the same cannot be said to start
grouting with SCBA AC. The dry bulk density of sugar cane bagasse ash mortar is within
the typical weight of mortar or concrete [75]. SCBA AC and SCBA G led to mortars with
a lower dry bulk density and more excellent water absorption. SCBA RG led to denser
mortars with less water absorption, except for SCBA RG 10%, which obtained slightly
higher water absorption. The results obtained by mortars with SCBA RG may indicate
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the
10 of 23
possibility of producing more durable concretes, mainly in reducing porosity indirectly
assessed by reducing water absorption.
Figure10.
Figure 10. XRD
XRD of
of SCBAs.
SCBAs.
Table To evaluate
4. Flow, thesetting
cement pozzolanicity
time, dry of a material,
bulk a mortar
density, and with a 35% cement replacement
water absorption.
(Type I) by the material must obtain at least 75% of the compressive strength of the mortar
without replacement (Type Cement Setting
II) [39]. Thus,Times
the SCBA G and RG analyzed can be considered
Substitution 1 (min) 2 Dry Bulk Density Water
Addition
(%)
pozzolanic once, with an average compressive strength (g/cm
Flow (mm) of 35.93
3 ) 1 and 38.17 MPa, reaching
Absorption (%) 1
83.40 and 88.6% of the averageStartcompressiveEnd strength found for the samples prepared with-
CC Reference 0 out the172.5
use of ash
(0.5) 3 (average 142
of 43.08 MPa), 191respectively2.168
(Table
(0.003)3). For the same flow, the
6.65 (0.08)
mortars with SCBA (B and C) demanded more water than the reference mortar (A), a
Dry mix
10 trend(Disaggregated)
in the use of SCBA [58]. 139According 183 to NBR 15895 2.156
[40],(0.013)
Chapelle’s test7.12 (0.17) for
modified
SCBA G and RG indicates 361 and 382 mg/g of Ca(OH)2 fixation, respectively. For samples
Dry mix
CC SCBA AC 20 to have pozzolanicity, they135 must be fixed 183with at least
2.133
330(0.007)
mg of Ca(OH) 7.51 (0.25)
2. In general,
(Disaggregated)
SCBA G and SCBA RG can be considered pozzolanic, as with SCBA studied by other au-
Dry mix
30 thors [70]. Grinding and re-firing
129 improved 181SCBA’s pozzolanic
2.129 (0.008) activity [71].
7.72 (0.15)
(Disaggregated)
10 Table 3. 168.0 (0.9) activity of 146
Pozzolanic SCBA. 196 2.162 (0.005) 7.03 (0.13)
CC SCBA G 20 169.0 (0.0) 143 195 2.142 (0.006) 7.17 (0.14)
Compressive Pozzolanic
30 Mortar 176.0 (0.5) 141 Flow (mm)
191 Water (g)
2.141 (0.005) 6.90 (0.24)
Strength (MPa) Activity (%)
10 166.5(Portland
Type I “A” (0.9) 141
cement) 225.0 188 162.7 2.169 (0.010)
43.08 6.79 (0.47)
100.0
CC SCBA RG 20 166.5(SCBA
Type II “B” (0.0) G 35%) 143 225.0 191 168.1 2.171 (0.008)
35.93 6.24 (0.28)
83.4
30 Type II “C”
166.0(SCBA
(0.0) RG 35%)143 225.0 190 179.4 2.178 (0.006)
38.17 88.6
6.10 (0.14)
1 Test performed in triplicate. 2 Test performed on a single sample. 3 Standard deviation in parentheses.
The flow table, cement setting time, dry bulk density, and water absorption results
of the mortars dosed with a trace with water/binder factor fixed in volume (w/b in equal
volume 0.48) are presented in Table 4. The SCBA AC significantly reduced the workability
of the mortars. SCBA G and RG reduced mortar workability [55,72,73], except SCBA G
30%. It is believed that the inclusion of SCBA AC mortar mixes increased both the viscos-
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 11 of 21
In Figure 11, it is possible to observe the results of the developed mortars’ compressive
strength. In general, mortar strength development was due to pozzolanic activity and
physical effects [76]. SCBA AC caused a drop in strength, confirming the low viability of
its use without any processing. On the other hand, the compressive strengths remained
approximately constant when using SCBA G and SCBA RG in mortars with a fixed wa-
ter/binder factor in volume. The behavior for mortars with a fixed water/binder factor
in weight (Figure 12) remained the same trend as with the mix with a water/fixed binder
factor in volume, with a drop in strength for SCBA AC. For mortars with a fixed flow factor,
the preparation of mortars within natural ash proved impracticable due to the large amount
of water involved in reaching the spread on the 225 mm flow table. The amount of water
demanded the maintenance of the 225 mm spread on the flow table to be increased with the
increase in ash (Figure 13). The reference mortar required 325.4 g of water for a standard
dosing with 624 g of Portland cement and 1824 g of standardized sand. For dosages with
the replacement of 10, 20, and 30% Portland cement by SCBA AC, the amount of water for
maintaining workability was changed to 363.3, 377.6, and 383.1 g, respectively. For mortars
with SCBA G 10, 20, and 30% and SCBA RG 10, 20, and 30%, water consumption was 338.9,
347.9, 361.1, 340.6, 351.4, and 357.5 g, respectively. It is noticed that mortars with SCBA
RG, even when requiring more water to maintain workability, presented a compressive
strength similar to the reference mortar. Thus, it is believed that using plasticizer additives
in conjunction with SCBA RG can significantly optimize compressive strength.
The consumption of binder in a cubic meter of mortar divided by the compressive
strength of the mortars with a fixed water/volume factor is shown in Table 5. It should
be noted that the SCBA consumption per volume (kg/m3 ) is detached from the X axis to
facilitate reading, but the vertical length of the gray bar represents the amount of ash per
cubic meter of mortar. It is possible to observe that the lowest Portland cement clinker
consumption was 8.31 kg/MPa for the mortar with a 30% replacement of re-fired and
ground ash compared to the consumption of 12.07 kg/MPa of the reference composite; thus,
a reduction in clinker consumption of approximately 30% for the equivalent compressive
strength was obtained.
For mortars with a fixed w/b factor in weight (Table 6), it is possible to observe that the
lowest clinker consumption by compressive strength was 7.82 kg/MPa for the mortar with
Buildings 2023,a13,
30% replacement
x FOR PEER REVIEW of burnt ash and ground compared to the consumption of 12.53 kg/MPa 12 of 2
of the reference mortar; thus, a reduction in clinker consumption of approximately 38%
was obtained.
60 60
50 50
Compressive strength (MPa)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
33.89
37.41
42.55
51.35
39.86
33.94
32.41
34.96
34.84
42.42
46.46
29.11
34.92
41.58
44.48
25.68
29.97
39.69
42.57
35.19
35.72
42.76
44.57
30.98
37.10
45.31
46.94
28.57
36.31
43.27
48.42
0 0
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
28 days
28 days
28 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
0% 10 20 30 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%
CC CC SCBA CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG

Reference AC
Figurestrength
Figure 11. Compressive 11. Compressive strength
of mortars with aofwater/binder
mortars with afactor
water/binder
fixed infactor fixed in volume.
volume.
70 70
e strength (MPa)
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
28 da
28 da
28 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
3 da
7 da
28 da
91 da
0% 10 20 30 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

Reference AC
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 12 of 21
Figure 11. Compressive strength of mortars with a water/binder factor fixed in volume.
70 70

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
33.89
37.91
41.03
57.63
31.13
34.99
35.31
31.62
40.99
44.15
57.63
33.87
40.02
43.01
48.85
30.69
34.42
43.94
48.13
33.35
40.81
45.08
50.37
29.58
38.37
47.80
52.02
32.36
41.41
46.48
53.71
10 10
0 0
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
28 days
28 days
28 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
0% 10 20 30 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

Reference AC
Figure 12. Compressive strength of mortars with a water/binder factor fixed in weight.
Figure 12. Compressive strength of mortars with a water/binder factor fixed in weight.
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
34.23
41.89
43.08
46.60
29.86
38.44
38.69
45.93
26.49
33.16
35.65
41.90
19.52
24.82
29.85
38.83
30.41
40.03
42.46
46.17
26.08
35.78
39.91
42.04
23.34
34.94
39.15
45.60
5 5
0 0
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
3 days
7 days
28 days
91 days
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%
CC Reference CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG
Figure 13. Compressive strength of mortars with the fixed flow.

Figure 13. Compressive strength of mortars with the fixed flow.
Table 5. Comparisons between cement orof

The consumption binder consumption
binder by compressive
in a cubic meter strengthby
of mortar divided of the
mortars
compressive
with fixed water/binder factor in volume.
strength of the mortars with a fixed water/volume factor is shown in Table 5. It should be
noted that the SCBA consumption per volume (kg/m3) is detached from the X axis to fa-
Clinker cilitate SCBA Clinker
reading, but the vertical length of the gray bar represents theBinder
amount of ash per
Consumption Consumption Water/Binder Water/Binder Consumption Consumption
Method Mortar Subst. (%) cubic meter of mortar. It is possible to observe that the lowest Portland cement clinker
per Volume per Volume in Volume in Weight per Strength per Strength
(kg/m3 ) consumption
(kg/m3 ) was 8.31 kg/MPa for the mortar with a 30% replacement
(kg/MPa) of re-fired and
(kg/MPa)
ground ash compared to the consumption of 12.07 kg/MPa of the reference composite;
CC reference 0% 513.8 0.0 1.49 0.48 12.07 12.07
Water/binder factor fixed in volume
thus, a reduction in clinker consumption of approximately 30% for the equivalent com-
10% 462.4 28.5 1.49
pressive strength was obtained. 0.50 11.60 12.31
CC SCBA
20% 411.0 56.9 1.49 0.53 12.11 13.79
AC
30% 359.6 Table 5. Comparisons
85.4 between
1.49 cement or binder
0.56 consumption by compressive
11.10 strength of mortars
13.73
with fixed water/binder factor in volume.
10% 462.4 32.7 1.49 0.50 10.90 11.67
Clinker Con- Binder Con-
CC SCBA G 20% 411.0 65.4
Clinker Con- SCBA Consump- 1.49 0.52 9.89 11.46
Metho Subst. Water/Binder Water/Binder sumption per sumption per
Mortar sumption per98.1 tion per Volume
d 30% 359.6
(%) 1.49 0.54
in Volume in Weight9.06 Strength 11.53 Strength
Volume (kg/m³) (kg/m³)
10% 462.4 43.9 1.49 0.49 10.81 (kg/MPa) 11.84 (kg/MPa)
CC SCBA CC reference 411.0
0% 513.8 87.8 0.0 1.49 1.49 0.50 0.48 9.07 12.07 11.01 12.07
20%
ater/binder factor fixed in
RG 10% 462.4 28.5 1.49 0.50 11.60 12.31

30% 359.6 131.6 1.49 0.50 8.31 11.35
CC SCBA AC 20% 411.0 56.9 1.49 0.53 12.11 13.79
30% 359.6 85.4 1.49 0.56 11.10 13.73
volume
10% 462.4 32.7 1.49 0.50 10.90 11.67

CC SCBA G 20% 411.0 65.4 1.49 0.52 9.89 11.46
30% 359.6 98.1 1.49 0.54 9.06 11.53
10% 462.4 43.9 1.49 0.49 10.81 11.84
CC SCBA RG 20% 411.0 87.8 1.49 0.50 9.07 11.01
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 13 of 21
Table 6. Comparisons between cement or agglomerate consumption due to compression strength of

mortars with water/binder factor fixed in weight.
Clinker SCBA Clinker Binder

Method Mortar Subst. (%)
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/MPa) (kg/MPa)
CC reference 0% 514.0 0.0 1.49 0.48 12.53 12.53
Water/binder factor fixed in weight
10% 467.7 28.8 1.42 0.48 15.02 15.95

CC SCBA
20% 420.4 58.2 1.36 0.48 12.02 13.68
AC
30% 372.0 88.3 1.29 0.48 10.54 13.04
10% 466.8 33.0 1.44 0.48 10.57 11.32
CC SCBA G 20% 418.7 66.6 1.38 0.48 9.73 11.28
30% 369.7 100.9 1.33 0.48 8.41 10.71
10% 464.2 44.1 1.47 0.48 10.30 11.27
CC SCBA
20% 414.1 88.4 1.45 0.48 8.66 10.51
RG
30% 363.7 133.1 1.43 0.48 7.82 10.69
For mortars with the fixed flow (Table 7), it is possible to observe that the lowest
clinker consumption by compressive strength was 8.77 kg/MPa for the mortar with a 30%
replacement of re-fired and ground ash compared to the consumption of 11.68 kg/MPa
of the reference mortar; thus, a reduction in clinker consumption of approximately 25%
was obtained.
Table 7. Comparisons between cement or binder consumption due to the compressive strength of
mortars with the fixed flow.
Clinker SCBA Clinker Binder

Method Mortar Subst. (%)
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/MPa) (kg/MPa)
CC reference 0% 503.2 0.0 1.62 0.52 11.68 11.68
10% 448.0 31.7 1.69 0.56 11.58 12.40
Fixed flow
CC SCBA G 20% 395.4 62.9 1.73 0.60 11.09 12.86

30% 342.4 93.4 1.80 0.65 11.47 14.60
10% 447.5 42.5 1.70 0.55 10.54 11.54
CC SCBA
20% 394.3 84.2 1.75 0.58 9.88 11.99
RG
30% 343.4 125.7 1.78 0.60 8.77 11.98
Assessing the feasibility of replacing ground clinker with processed ashes in the eco-
nomic context is essential. However, an analysis of the SCBA-based mixed Portland cement
production life cycle, including the economic and environmental benefits, needs to be
carried out to obtain SCBA acceptance in the cement industries [55]. The final cost of the
Portland cement produced should lead to more accessible concrete. The main expense of
SCBA is transportation; however, cement also has transport costs from the manufacturing
site to the consumption site. The cost of grinding includes energy consumption, depreci-
ation of equipment, and labor, and is approximately 30% of the total cost of SCBA. The
cost of Portland cement calculated for Thailand was US$ 64.7/ton against US$ 15.0/ton for
SCBA [77]. Chindaprasirt et al. [77] present CO2 -eq emissions almost eight times lower for
SCBA when compared to Portland cement.
Currently, SCBA is a residue from the sugar and alcohol industry without a high-
added-value destination and is usually deposited in landfills, which does not add economic
value. It is worth noting that the temperature of the thermal treatment of ash proposed
in this work is about 40% of the manufacturing temperature of Portland cement. The
limestone and Portland cement clinker, being easier to grind. These factors are likely to
lead to burning and grinding costs lower than the cement manufacturing process costs.
The cost of ash was compared as a percentage to the cost of cement for mortars pro-
duced with a water/binder factor fixed in volume (Figure 14). For comparative purposes,
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 the graph of the cost reduction with binder in the production of concrete versus the 14 ofcost
21
of ash in relation to cement was plotted, considering ash at zero cost (0%) or with the exact
cost of cement (100%) and the binder consumption for the acquired strength (kg/MPa).
Consideringofthe
temperature resultsin
burning obtained, it can beplants
thermoelectric said that,
and in termsisofnot
boilers costs, the savings
controlled; will be
however,
9.69%, 18.06%, and 24.94% for the replacement of 10%, 20%, and 30%
having a commercial interest, it is believed that this temperature can be adjusted with some of cement by SCBA
G atwhich
ease, no acquisition
can eliminate cost,therespectively. For the ashbyacquisition
need for reprocessing cost equal
burning. Another to thataspect
important cost of
iscement
that the(100%),
naturalthe ashsavings
presents will
in still be 3.31%, 5.05%,
granulometry and 4.47%
and strength for 10%,
inferior to the20%, and 30%
limestone andof
substitutions,
Portland cementrespectively.
clinker, being The cost to
easier breakeven
grind. Thesepoint, that is,
factors arewhen
likelythe cost to
to lead ofburning
Portland
cement
and concrete
grinding costswill
lowerbethan
the same as the manufacturing
the cement cost of Portland cement
process concrete with ash, will
costs.
happen when the value of the ground ash reaches 223.8%,
The cost of ash was compared as a percentage to the cost of cement 147.1%, and 121.8% for substi-
for mortars pro-
tutions
duced of 10%,
with 20%, and 30%
a water/binder of cement
factor fixed inby SCBA(Figure
volume G, respectively.
14). For comparative purposes,
For of
the graph substitutions with re-fired
the cost reduction and ground
with binder ash, the costofreduction
in the production will bethe
concrete versus 10.44%
cost offor
concrete
ash withto
in relation a 10% replacement,
cement was plotted, 24.86% for 20%,ash
considering andat31.15% for (0%)
zero cost 30%. orForwith
the cost of ash
the exact
cost of cement
equal to cement (100%) andthe
(100%), thesavings
binder will
consumption for the
still be 1.91%, acquired
8.78%, strength
and 5.97% for(kg/MPa).
10, 20, and
Considering the results respectively.
30% of substitutions, obtained, it can Thebecost
saidbreakeven
that, in terms
pointof will
costs,happen
the savings
whenwill thebe re-
9.69%, 18.06%, and 24.94% for the replacement of 10%, 20%, and 30%
burnt and ground ash value reaches 122.4% of the cement value for 10%, 154.6% for 20%, of cement by SCBA G
atand
no acquisition
123.7% for the cost, respectively.
30% replacement, Forconsidering
the ash acquisition
the same cost equal to that
compressive cost ofacquired.
strength cement
(100%), the savings
Therefore, will into
taking still be 3.31%,that
account 5.05%, and of
the cost 4.47%
ash for 10%, 20%,
is around 23%and 30%
of the of substi-
cost of Port-
tutions, respectively.
land cement and with Theemissions
cost breakeven point,lower
eight times that is,[77],
when the cost
based of Portland
on the cementin
data presented
concrete
Figure 14,willthere
be the same as the
is financial andcost of Portland viability
environmental cement concrete
in the use with ash, will
of SCBA forhappen
the pro-
when the value of the ground
duction of mortars and concrete. ash reaches 223.8%, 147.1%, and 121.8% for substitutions of
10%, 20%, and 30% of cement by SCBA G, respectively.
35%
Cost reduction with binder in the production of
CC SCBA RG 30%
31.15%
30% CC SCBA RG 20%
CC SCBA RG 10%
24.86%
25% CC SCBA G 30%
CC SCBA G 20%
concrete
20%
18.06% CC SCBA G 10%
15%
10.44%
10%
8.78%
9.69% 5.97%
4.47%
5% 5.05%
3.31%
1.91%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
Cost of ash in relation to cement
Figure 14. Mortar and concrete cost comparisons for SCBA relative cost variation.
For substitutions with re-fired and ground ash, the cost reduction will be 10.44% for
concrete with a 10% replacement, 24.86% for 20%, and 31.15% for 30%. For the cost of ash
equal to cement (100%), the savings will still be 1.91%, 8.78%, and 5.97% for 10, 20, and 30%
of substitutions, respectively. The cost breakeven point will happen when the re-burnt and
ground ash value reaches 122.4% of the cement value for 10%, 154.6% for 20%, and 123.7%
for the 30% replacement, considering the same compressive strength acquired.
Therefore, taking into account that the cost of ash is around 23% of the cost of Portland
cement and with emissions eight times lower [77], based on the data presented in Figure 14,
there is financial and environmental viability in the use of SCBA for the production of
mortars and concrete.
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 Figure 14. Mortar and concrete cost comparisons for SCBA relative cost variation. 15 of 21
Another mechanical parameter evaluated was the flexural strength of mortars pro-
ducedAnother
with SCBA G and SCBA
mechanical RG, shown
parameter evaluated in Figure
was the15. Note that
flexural the tensile
strength strengths
of mortars pro- of
mortars withSCBA
duced with SCBA G RG
andreached
SCBA RG, higher
shown values than15.
in Figure standard
Note thatmortar. An analysis
the tensile strengthsofof the
dry bulk with
mortars density
SCBAshowed that the
RG reached results
higher werethan
values superior,
standard andmortar.
the results of waterofabsorp-
An analysis the
dry were
tion bulk density showed
lower with thethat the RG
SCBA results were superior,
addition. and thecorrelated
These results results of water absorption
with better perfor-
were lower with the SCBA RG addition. These results correlated with better
mance in the compressive and flexural strength of the mixtures with the addition of the performance
in the RG,
SCBA compressive
which wasanddue
flexural strength
to the of the mixtures
filler action and the with the addition
pozzolanic effectofbecause
the SCBAtheRG,
com-
which was due to the filler action and the pozzolanic effect because the
pressive and flexural strength has increased. The positive influence of the burning ofcompressive and
flexural
sugar strength
cane hasash
bagasse increased. The positive
is confirmed in the influence
literatureof[33].
the burning of sugar cane bagasse
ash is confirmed in the literature [33].
12 12
10 10
Flexural strengtth (MPa)
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
8.26
9.18
7.36
7.66
8.39
9.59
9.53
8.05
7.75
8.69
8.79
9.45
9.50
9.55
8.75
8.64
7.55
7.32
8.48
8.51
8.54
0 0
0%
10%
20%
30%
10%
20%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
10%
20%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
10%
20%
30%
CC CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG CC CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG CC CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG
Reference Reference Reference
Water/binder factor fixed in volume Water/binder factor fixed in mass Fixed flow
Figure
Figure15.
15.Flexural
Flexural strength of mortars.
strength of mortars.
Regarding the
Regarding thepotential
potentialofof SCBA
SCBA to inhibit
to inhibit harmful
harmful alkali–silica
alkali–silica reactions,
reactions, in
in Figures
Figures
16 and 17,16itand
can17,
be itseen
can that
be seen
SCBAthatRG
SCBA RG presented
presented an inhibition
an inhibition of the of the expansion
expansion of
of mortars
mortars higher than the inhibition of SCBA G. It has been found that the
higher than the inhibition of SCBA G. It has been found that the expansion was inverse to expansion was
inverse
the to the
content of content
SCBA for of SCBA
both for
SCBAbothGSCBA G and SCBA
and SCBA RG. ItRG. It is believed
is believed that that
the the inhibi- of
inhibition
tion of expandability is related to two mechanisms of action. The first mechanism would be
expandability is related to two mechanisms of action. The first mechanism would be
SCBA’s performance as pozzolans, providing a greater cement alkali consumption, inhibit-
SCBA’s performance as pozzolans, providing a greater cement alkali consumption, inhib-
ing the composites’ expandability [78–80]. The second mechanism would be the SCBA’s
iting the composites’ expandability [78–80]. The second mechanism would be the SCBA’s
performance as a filler [81–83], providing the reduction of the composites’ porosity through
performance
pore filling byas a filler
SCBA G and [81–83],
SCBA RG,providing
reducingthe reduction
the entry of alkalis
of water the composites’ porosity
that are available
through pore filling
in the sodium by SCBA
hydroxide G and
solution. SCBA
Both RG, reducing
mechanisms the
justify theentry
betterofperformance
water alkalisofthat
the are
available in the sodium hydroxide solution. Both mechanisms
SCBA RG since it has a smaller particle size and a higher amount of SiO2 . justify the better perfor-
manceFlexural
of the SCBAstrengthRGmortars
since it with
has areactive
smalleraggregates
particle size and athe
before higher amount
ASR test of SiO
is shown in2.
Figure 18. The flexural tensile strength for mortars 900 days after the ASR expandability test
is shown in Figure 19. You can see that the mortars with SCBA RG maintained higher levels
of tensile strength in flexion after the alkalis attack. In general, the SCBA thermal treatment
improvement improves the performance of mortars in several aspects, as reported in the
literature [30], including mechanically and in the inhibition of expansions caused by ASR.
0.8
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 0.7 CCQ 16 of 21
CCQ SCBA G 10%

0.6
Expandability (%) 0.8
CCQ SCBA G 20%
0.5
CCQ SCBA G 30%
0.7 CCQ
0.4 CCQ SCBA RG 10%
CCQ SCBA G 10%
0.6
CCQ SCBA RG 20%
Expandability (%)
0.3 CCQ SCBA G 20%
0.5
CCQ SCBA RGCCQ
30%SCBA G 30%
0.2
0.4 Limits CCQ SCBA RG 10%
0.1 CCQ SCBA RG 20%

0.3
CCQ SCBA RG 30%
0 0.2
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Limits
0.1
Age (days)
0
0 4
Figure 16. Comparison 8between
12 the16 20 24 of mortars
expandability 28 32developed
36 with quartzite aggre-
gates. Age (days)
Figure 16. Comparison

Figure between the expandability
16. Comparison of mortars developed
between the expandability of mortars with quartzite
developed with aggregates.
quartzite aggre-
gates.
0.8
0.7 CCB
0.8 CCB SCBA G 10%
0.6
Expandability (%)
0.7 CCB
CCB SCBA G 20%
0.5 CCB SCBA G 10%
CCB SCBA G 30%
0.6
Expandability (%)
0.4 CCB SCBA RGCCB

10%SCBA G 20%
0.5 CCB SCBA G 30%
CCB SCBA RG 20%
0.3 0.4 CCB SCBA RG 10%
CCB SCBA RG 30%
CCB SCBA RG 20%
0.2 0.3 Limits
CCB SCBA RG 30%
0.1 0.2 Limits
0 0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
0
Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0 Age
4 (days)
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 18 of 23
Age (days)
Figure17.
Figure Comparisonbetween
17.Comparison betweenthe
theexpandability
expandabilityofofmortars
mortarsdeveloped
developedwith
withbasalt
basaltaggregates.
aggregates.
Figure 17. Comparison between the expandability of mortars developed with basalt aggregates.
14 14
Flexural strength mortars with reactive aggregates before the ASR test is shown in
Flexural strength mortars with reactive aggregates before the ASR test is shown in
Figure1218. The flexural tensile strength for mortars 900 days after the ASR expandability
Figure 18. The flexural tensile strength for mortars 900 days after the ASR 12 expandability
test is shown in Figure 19. You can see that the mortars with SCBA RG maintained higher
test is shown in Figure 19. You can see that the mortars with SCBA RG maintained higher
Flexural strength (MPa)
levels 10of tensile strength in flexion

levels of tensile afterinthe
strength alkalis
flexion afterattack. In general,
the alkalis the
attack. In SCBAthe
general, thermal
10 SCBA thermal
treatment improvement
treatmentimproves
improvement the improves
performance of mortars of
the performance in mortars
several in
aspects,
several as re- as re-
aspects,
ported8 in the literature
ported in [30],
the including mechanically
literature [30], and in the inhibition
including mechanically of expansions
and in the inhibition
8 of expansions
caused by ASR. caused by ASR.

6 6
4 4
2 2
11.13
10.48
10.94
11.53
12.07
10.99
10.54
10.36
10.70
10.78
10.95
8.95
8.02
9.42
0 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%
CCB CCB SBCA G CCB SBCA RG CCQ CCQ SBCA G CCQ SBCA RG
Basalt Quartzite
Figure 18. Flexural strength

Figure 18.mortars with reactive
Flexural strength aggregates
mortars with before the
reactive aggregates ASR
before test.test.
the ASR
14 14
12 12
a)
10 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%
Basalt Quartzite
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 17 of 21

Figure 18. Flexural strength mortars with reactive aggregates before the ASR test.
14 14
12 12
Flexural strength (MPa)
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
11.09
11.29
7.75
7.77
7.37
6.75
8.15
8.16
7.21
7.86
7.08
8.70
8.72
8.83
0 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%
Basalt Quartzite
Figure 19. Flexural strength at 900 days of mortars after ASR test.
Figure 19. Flexural strength at 900 days of mortars after ASR test.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
This study demonstrated the possibility of using SCBA to produce Portland cement.
The partial replacement
This study of thethe
demonstrated Portland cement
possibility clinker
of using by SCBA
SCBA was feasible,
to produce Portlandand the
cement.
conclusions
The partial below were made:
replacement of the Portland cement clinker by SCBA was feasible, and the
1.conclusions below were
The processing made:
of SCBA by grinding or burning promotes morphological and physical
changes. Grinding and burning increased the density and reduced the particle size of
SCBA. SCBA AC and SCBA G showed a high loss on ignition. SCBA G and SCBA RG
are pozzolanic.
2. The cement produced with SCBA AC took the mortar with an inadequate consistency.
The cement with SCBA G and SCBA RG did not have its setting time significantly
altered. The higher percentage of additions (20% and 30%) of SCBA RG led to
mortars with a higher dry bulk density and lower water absorption. The compressive
strength of mortars with the cement with SCBA G and SCBA RG were compatible
with the results obtained by the reference Portland cement, regardless of the dosage
method used.
3. SCBA RG presented the lowest consumption of the Portland cement reference by
compressive strength acquired in the dosing methods: (a) fixed water/binder factor
in volume; (b) water/binder factor fixed in weight; and (c) fixed flow.
4. Without considering logistical costs, if SCBA’s processing costs are zero, the savings
in Portland cement production can reach 31.15%. For replacements of up to 30% of
the clinker by SCBA, if the cost of the SCBA is equal to the cost of the clinker, the
savings can reach 8.78%. It is worth noting that the temperature adjustment of the
boilers of the thermoelectric plants can lead to SCBA being more suitable for the
partial replacement of the clinker, without the need for re-firing, and the grinding of
the SCBA requires less energy than the grinding of the clinker, mainly due to the size
of the SGBA AC being reduced compared to the clinker.
5. The clinker’s replacement by SCBA reduces the expansion of mortar prisms with
reactive aggregates exposed to aggressive environments (NaOH solution at 80 ◦ C for
28 days). The SCBA RG in the 30% Portland clinker substitution inhibits expansion by
ASR with the used aggregates of quartzite and basalt. This fact is confirmed by the
flexural strength presented by CC SCBA RG 30% after 900 days of the ASR test.
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 18 of 21
In addition to reducing the Portland cement clinker caused by the use of SCBA,
the incorporation of SCBA G and SCBA RG imprisons 49.2% and 3.3% of the material
content with incomplete combustion rich in carbon in the matrix. This incorporation did
not significantly change the setting time, porosity, and durability at ASR of the matrix
produced. This subject should be researched with the intent of proving carbon capture.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.C.N.F.F. and A.C.d.S.B.; methodology, M.C.N.F.F.

and A.C.d.S.B.; validation, R.C.G., M.C.N.F.F. and A.C.d.S.B.; formal analysis, R.C.G., M.C.N.F.F.,
C.d.S.R., M.T.P.A. and A.C.d.S.B.; investigation, S.L.C.S. and A.C.d.S.B.; resources, M.V.d.M.S.S. and
A.C.d.S.B.; data curation, R.C.G. and A.C.d.S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.C.S., S.F.,
L.N.S. and A.C.d.S.B.; writing—review and editing, S.F., L.N.S. and A.C.d.S.B.; visualization, S.F.,
L.N.S. and A.C.d.S.B.; supervision, R.C.G. and A.C.d.S.B.; project administration, M.V.d.M.S.S. and
A.C.d.S.B.; funding acquisition, A.C.d.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Energy Company of Minas Gerais (CEMIG) and the
National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) for funding through the PD ANEEL CEMIG GT331
and PD ANEEL CEMIG GT616 projects, the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG)
[grant number APQ-03739-16] for their assistance with the infrastructure, and National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [grant number PQ 315653/2020-5] for the research
productivity incentive grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could appear to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1. Scrivener, K.L.; John, V.M.; Gartner, E.M. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-
based materials industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2–26. [CrossRef]
2. United States Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2022; United States Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2022.
3. Ali, N.; Mohd Sobri, M.H.A.; Hadipramana, J.; Abdul Samad, A.A.; Mohamad, N. Potential Mixture of POFA and SCBA as
Cement Replacement in Concrete—A Review. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 103, 01006. [CrossRef]
4. Paris, J.M.; Roessler, J.G.; Ferraro, C.C.; Deford, H.D.; Townsend, T.G. A review of waste products utilized as supplements to
Portland cement in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 121, 1–18. [CrossRef]
5. Lorena Figueiredo Martins, M.; Roberto Ribeiro Soares Junior, P.; Henrique da Silva, T.; de Souza Maciel, P.; Peixoto Pinheiro, I.;
Cesar da Silva Bezerra, A. Magnesium industry waste and red mud to eco-friendly ternary binder: Producing more sustainable
cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 310, 125172. [CrossRef]
6. Gołaszewski, J.; Gołaszewska, M.; Cygan, G. Performance of Ordinary and Self-Compacting Concrete with Limestone after
Freeze–Thaw Cycles. Buildings 2022, 12, 2003. [CrossRef]
7. Khatib, J.; Ramadan, R.; Ghanem, H.; Elkordi, A. Volume stability of cement paste containing limestone fines. Buildings 2021, 11,
366. [CrossRef]
8. Choi, Y.C.; Park, B. Enhanced autogenous healing of ground granulated blast furnace slag blended cements and mortars. J. Mater.
Res. Technol. 2019, 8, 3443–3452. [CrossRef]
9. Ramakrishnan, K.; Pugazhmani, G.; Sripragadeesh, R.; Muthu, D.; Venkatasubramanian, C. Experimental study on the mechanical
and durability properties of concrete with waste glass powder and ground granulated blast furnace slag as supplementary
cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 739–749. [CrossRef]
10. Zeraoui, A.; Maherzi, W.; Benzerzour, M.; Abriak, N.E.; Aouad, G. Development of Flash—Calcined Sediment and Blast Furnace
Slag Ternary Binders. Buildings 2023, 13, 333. [CrossRef]
11. Ramzi, S.; Hajiloo, H. The Effects of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) on the Residual Mechanical Properties of
Concrete after Exposure to High Temperatures—Review. Buildings 2022, 13, 103. [CrossRef]
12. Barboza-Chavez, A.C.; Gómez-Zamorano, L.Y.; Acevedo-Dávila, J.L. Synthesis and characterization of a hybrid cement based on
fly ash, metakaolin and portland cement clinker. Materials 2020, 13, 1084. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Ahmad, J.; Majdi, A.; Arbili, M.M.; Deifalla, A.F.; Naqash, M.T. Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis Overview of
Concrete Made with Metakaolin (MTK). Buildings 2022, 12, 1401. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 19 of 21
14. Yanez, S.; Márquez, C.; Valenzuela, B.; Villamar-Ayala, C.A. A Bibliometric-Statistical Review of Organic Residues as Cementitious
Building Materials. Buildings 2022, 12, 597. [CrossRef]
15. Young, G.; Yang, M. Preparation and characterization of Portland cement clinker from iron ore tailings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019,
197, 152–156. [CrossRef]
16. Gou, M.; Zhou, L.; Then, N.W.Y. Utilization of tailings in cement and concrete: A review. Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. 2019, 26,
449–464. [CrossRef]
17. Magalhães, L.F.D.; França, S.; Oliveira, M.D.S.; Peixoto, R.A.F.; Bessa, S.A.L.; Bezerra, A.C.D.S. Iron ore tailings as a supplementary
cementitious material in the production of pigmented cements. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 123260. [CrossRef]
18. ABNT NBR 16697; Cimento Portland—Requisitos. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT): São Paulo, Brazil, 2018.
19. Teixeira, A.H.C.; Junior, P.R.R.S.; Silva, T.H.; Barreto, R.R.; da Silva Bezerra, A.C. Low-carbon concrete based on binary biomass
ash-silica fume binder to produce eco-friendly paving blocks. Materials 2020, 13, 1534. [CrossRef]
20. Gutiérrez-Orrego, D.A.; Gómez-Botero, M.A.; García, E.F. Alkali-Activated Hybrid Cement from Mineral Wool Fiber Waste and
OPC. Buildings 2023, 13, 354. [CrossRef]
21. De Matos Neto, J.A.; De Resende, D.S.; Da Silva Neto, J.T.; De Gouveia, A.M.C.; De Aguilar, M.T.P.; Da Silva Bezerra, A.C. Sterile
clay pozzolans from phosphate mining. Mater. Res. 2015, 18, 230–234. [CrossRef]
22. Li, J.; Ren, W.; Zhang, A.; Li, S.; Tan, J.; Liu, H. Mechanical Properties and Microstructure Analysis of Cement Mortar Mixed with
Iron Ore Tailings. Buildings 2023, 13, 149. [CrossRef]
23. Kim, J.; Lee, D.; Sičáková, A.; Kim, N. Utilization of Different Forms of Demolished Clay Brick and Granite Wastes for Better
Performance in Cement Composites. Buildings 2023, 13, 165. [CrossRef]
24. de Magalhães, L.F.; de Souza Morais, I.; Lara, L.F.D.S.; de Resende, D.S.; Menezes, R.M.R.O.; Aguilar, M.T.P.; da Silva Bezerra,
A.C. Iron ore tailing as addition to partial replacement of portland cement. Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 930, 125–130. [CrossRef]
25. de Souza Morais, I.; de Magalhães, L.F.; Lara, L.F.D.S.; Corrêa, E.C.S.; Menezes, R.M.R.O.; Aguilar, M.T.P.; da Silva Bezerra, A.C.
Sericitic phyllite as addition in portland cement. Mater. Sci. Forum 2018, 930, 131–136. [CrossRef]
26. Ye, J.; Liu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Fang, J.; Zhang, H.; Guan, X. Development of Ultrafine Mineral Admixture from Magnesium Slag
and Sequestration of CO2 . Buildings 2023, 13, 204. [CrossRef]
27. Duarte, M.S.; Almada, B.S.; José dos Santos, W.; Lima Bessa, S.A.; Cesar da Silva Bezerra, A.; Paulino Aguilar, M.T. Influence of
mechanical treatment and magnetic separation on the performance of iron ore tailings as supplementary cementitious material.
J. Build. Eng. 2022, 59, 105099. [CrossRef]
28. Pires, M.; de Jesus Andrade Fidelis, R.; de Resende, D.S.; da Silva Bezerra, A.C. Phosphate rock waste in the production of cement
tile. Results Eng. 2022, 16, 100701. [CrossRef]
29. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029; OECD/FAO: Paris, France, 2020; ISBN 9789264317673.
30. da Silva Bezerra, A.C.; Saraiva, S.L.C.; dos Silva Lara, L.F.; de Castro, L.W.A.; Gomes, R.C.; de Silva Rodrigues, C.; Ferreira,
M.C.N.F.; Aguilar, M.T.P. Effect of partial replacement with thermally processed sugar cane bagasse on the properties of mortars.
Rev. Mater. 2017, 22, e11785. [CrossRef]
31. Rezende, M.F.; Machado, F.C.S.; Gouveia, A.M.C.; Bezerra, A.C.S.; Grillo, R.H.F.; Ortigara, Y.V.B. Substituição parcial do cimento
Portland pela cinza de bagaço de cana-de-açúcar em habitações de interesse social. Rev. Agrogeoambiental 2017, 9, 1. [CrossRef]
32. Soares, M.M.N.S.; Poggiali, F.S.J.; Bezerra, A.C.S.; Figueiredo, R.B.; Aguilar, M.T.P.; Cetlin, P.R. The effect of calcination conditions
on the physical and chemical characteristics of sugar cane bagasse ash. Rem Rev. Esc. Minas 2014, 67, 33–39. [CrossRef]
33. Ferreira, R.T.L.; Nunes, F.M.M.P.; Bezerra, A.C.S.; Figueiredo, R.B.; Cetlin, P.R.; Aguilar, M.T.P. Influence of reburning on the
pozolanicity of sugar-cane bagasse ashes with different characteristics. Mater. Sci. Forum 2016, 869, 141–146. [CrossRef]
34. Mohan, R.; Athira, G.; Mali, A.K.; Bahurudeen, A.; Nanthagopalan, P. Systematic Pretreatment Process and Optimization of
Sugarcane Bagasse Ash Dosage for Use in Cement-Based Products. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021045. [CrossRef]
35. Sousa, L.N.; Figueiredo, P.F.; França, S.; de Moura Solar Silva, M.V.; Borges, P.H.R.; da Silva Bezerra, A.C. Effect of Non-Calcined
Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as an Alternative Precursor on the Properties of Alkali-Activated Pastes. Molecules 2022, 27, 1185.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Silva, T.H.; Lara, L.F.S.; Silva, G.J.B.; Provis, J.L.; Bezerra, A.C.S. Alkali-activated materials produced using high-calcium,
high-carbon biomass ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 132, 104646. [CrossRef]
37. Cordeiro, G.C.; Toledo Filho, R.D.; Fairbairn, E.M.R. Effect of calcination temperature on the pozzolanic activity of sugar cane
bagasse ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 3301–3303. [CrossRef]
38. ASTM C618-19; Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
39. ABNT NBR 5752; Materiais Pozolânicos—Determinação do Índice Desempenho com Cimento Portland aos 28 Dias. Associação
Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2014.
40. ABNT NBR 15895; Materiais Pozolânicos—Determinação do Teor de Hidróxido de Cálcio Fixado—Método Chapelle Modificado.
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2010.
41. Moreira, M.A.N.S.; Heitmann, A.P.; Bezerra, A.C.S.; Patrício, P.S.O.; de Oliveira, L.C.A.; Castro, C.S.; de Souza, P.P. Photocatalytic
performance of cementitious materials with addition of red mud and Nb2O5 particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 259, 119851.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 20 of 21
42. Silva, T.H.; Castro, A.C.M.; Valente Neto, F.C.; Soares, M.M.N.S.; De Resende, D.S.; Bezerra, A.C.S. Recycling ceramic waste as a
raw material in sanitary ware production. Ceramica 2019, 65, 426–431. [CrossRef]
43. Morais, C.F.; Belo, B.R.; Bezerra, A.C.S.; Loura, R.M.; Porto, M.P.; Bessa, S.A.L. Thermal and mechanical analyses of colored
mortars produced using Brazilian iron ore tailings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 268, 121073. [CrossRef]
44. ABNT NM 65; Cimento Portland—Determinação dos Tempos de Pega. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo,
Brazil, 2003.
45. ABNT NBR 7215; Cimento Portland—Determinação da Resistência à Compressão de Corpos de Prova Cilíndricos. Associação
Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2019.
46. ABNT NBR 7214; Areia Normal para Ensaio de Cimento (Especificação). Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo,
Brazil, 2015.
47. EN 197-1; Cement—Part 1: Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements. European Committee for
Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
48. ABNT NBR 13279; Argamassa para Assentamento e Revestimento de Paredes e Tetos—Determinação da Resistência à Tração na
Flexão e à Compressão. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2005.
49. ABNT NBR 9778; Argamassa e Concreto Endurecidos—Determinação da Absorção de Água, Índice de Vazios E Massa Específica.
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2005.
50. ASTM International (2014) C 1260-14; Standard Test Method Potential Alkali React. Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
51. ABNT NBR 15577-5; Agregados—Reatividade Álcali-Agregado Parte 5: Determinação da Mitigação da Expansão em Barras de
Argamassa pelo Método Acelerado. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2018.
52. ABNT NNBR 15577-4; Agregados—Reatividade Álcali-Agregado Parte 4: Determinação da Expansão em Barras de Argamassa
pelo Método Acelerado. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2018; ISBN 978-85-07-07583-7.
53. Deepika, S.; Anand, G.; Bahurudeen, A.; Santhanam, M. Construction Products with Sugarcane Bagasse Ash Binder. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2017, 29, 04017189. [CrossRef]
54. Athira, V.S.; Charitha, V.; Athira, G.; Bahurudeen, A. Agro-waste ash based alkali-activated binder: Cleaner production of zero
cement concrete for construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125429. [CrossRef]
55. Jittin, V.; Minnu, S.N.; Bahurudeen, A. Potential of sugarcane bagasse ash as supplementary cementitious material and comparison
with currently used rice husk ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 273, 121679. [CrossRef]
56. Yadav, A.L.; Sairam, V.; Srinivasan, K.; Muruganandam, L. Synthesis and characterization of geopolymer from metakaolin and
sugarcane bagasse ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 119231. [CrossRef]
57. Akbar, A.; Farooq, F.; Shafique, M.; Aslam, F.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H. Sugarcane bagasse ash-based engineered
geopolymer mortar incorporating propylene fibers. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101492. [CrossRef]
58. Minnu, S.N.; Bahurudeen, A.; Athira, G. Comparison of sugarcane bagasse ash with fly ash and slag: An approach towards
industrial acceptance of sugar industry waste in cleaner production of cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124836. [CrossRef]
59. Moraes, J.C.B.; Cordeiro, G.C.; Akasaki, J.L.; Vieira, A.P.; Payá, J. Improving the reactivity of a former ground sugarcane bagasse
ash produced by autogenous combustion through employment of two different additional grinding procedures. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2021, 270, 121471. [CrossRef]
60. Lyra, G.P.; Borrachero, M.V.; Soriano, L.; Payá, J.; Rossignolo, J.A. Comparison of original and washed pure sugar cane bagasse
ashes as supplementary cementing materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 122001. [CrossRef]
61. Klathae, T.; Tanawuttiphong, N.; Tangchirapat, W.; Chindaprasirt, P.; Sukontasukkul, P.; Jaturapitakkul, C. Heat evolution,
strengths, and drying shrinkage of concrete containing high volume ground bagasse ash with different LOIs. Constr. Build. Mater.
2020, 258, 119443. [CrossRef]
62. Tavares, L.R.C.; Junior, J.F.T.; Costa, L.M.; da Silva Bezerra, A.C.; Cetlin, P.R.; Aguilar, M.T.P. Influence of quartz powder and silica
fume on the performance of Portland cement. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21461. [CrossRef]
63. ABNT NBR 12653; Materiais pozolânicos—Requisitos. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2014.
64. Cordeiro, G.C.; Barroso, T.R.; Toledo Filho, R.D. Enhancement the Properties of Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash with High Carbon
Content by a Controlled Re-calcination Process. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 1250–1257. [CrossRef]
65. Antao, S.M.; Hassan, I.; Wang, J.; Lee, P.L.; Toby, B.H. State-of-the-art high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD)
illustrated with rietveld structure refinement of quartz, sodalite, tremolite, and meionite. Can. Mineral. 2008, 46, 1501–1509.
[CrossRef]
66. Dan’ko, A.J.; Rom, M.A.; Sidelnikova, N.S.; Nizhankovskiy, S.V.; Budnikov, A.T.; Grin, L.A.; Kaltaev, K.S.O. Transformation of the
corundum structure upon high-temperature reduction. Crystallogr. Rep. 2008, 53, 1112–1118. [CrossRef]
67. Pauling, L.; Hendricks, S.B. The crystal structures of hematite and corundum. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1925, 47, 781–790. [CrossRef]
68. Andreão, P.V.; Suleiman, A.R.; Cordeiro, G.C.; Nehdi, M.L. Beneficiation of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash: Pozzolanic Activity and
Leaching Behavior. Waste Biomass Valorization 2020, 11, 4393–4402. [CrossRef]
69. Martins Torres, S.; Estolano de Lima, V.; de Azevedo Basto, P.; de Araújo Júnior, N.T.; de Melo Neto, A.A. Assessing the pozzolanic
activity of sugarcane bagasse ash using X-ray diffraction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 264, 120684. [CrossRef]
70. Figueiredo, R.L.; Pavía, S. A study of the parameters that determine the reactivity of sugarcane bagasse ashes (SCBA) for use as a
binder in construction. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1515. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 843 21 of 21
71. Katare, V.D.; Madurwar, M.V. Use of processed biomass ash as a sustainable pozzolana. Curr. Sci. 2019, 116, 741–750. [CrossRef]
72. Praveenkumar, S.; Sankarasubramanian, G. Synergic Effect of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash Based Cement on High Performance
Concrete Properties. Silicon 2021, 13, 2357–2367. [CrossRef]
73. Bonfim, W.B.; de Paula, H.M. Characterization of different biomass ashes as supplementary cementitious material to produce
coating mortar. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 291, 125869. [CrossRef]
74. Raverdy, M.; Brivot, F.; Paillére, A.M.; Dron, R. Assessment of the pozzolanic activity of the secondary constituents (in French:
Appreciation de l’actvite pouzzolanique des constituants secondaires). In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the
Chemistry of Cement, Paris, France, 1 January 1980; Volume 3, pp. 36–41.
75. Jahanzaib Khalil, M.; Aslam, M.; Ahmad, S. Utilization of sugarcane bagasse ash as cement replacement for the production of
sustainable concrete—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 270, 121371. [CrossRef]
76. Barbosa, F.L.; Cordeiro, G.C. Partial cement replacement by different sugar cane bagasse ashes: Hydration-related properties,
compressive strength and autogenous shrinkage. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 8–11. [CrossRef]
77. Chindaprasirt, P.; Kroehong, W.; Damrongwiriyanupap, N.; Suriyo, W.; Jaturapitakkul, C. Mechanical properties, chloride
resistance and microstructure of Portland fly ash cement concrete containing high volume bagasse ash. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31,
101415. [CrossRef]
78. da Silva Andrade Neto, J.; de França, M.J.S.; de Amorim Júnior, N.S.; Ribeiro, D.V. Effects of adding sugarcane bagasse ash on the
properties and durability of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 120959. [CrossRef]
79. Kazmi, S.M.S.; Munir, M.J.; Patnaikuni, I.; Wu, Y.F. Pozzolanic reaction of sugarcane bagasse ash and its role in controlling alkali
silica reaction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 231–240. [CrossRef]
80. Abbas, S.; Sharif, A.; Ahmed, A.; Abbass, W.; Shaukat, S. Prospective of sugarcane bagasse ash for controlling the alkali-silica
reaction in concrete incorporating reactive aggregates. Struct. Concr. 2020, 21, 781–793. [CrossRef]
81. Cordeiro, G.C.; Toledo Filho, R.D.; Tavares, L.M.; Fairbairn, E.M.R. Pozzolanic activity and filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash
in Portland cement and lime mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2008, 30, 410–418. [CrossRef]
82. Cordeiro, G.C.; Tavares, L.M.; Toledo Filho, R.D. Improved pozzolanic activity of sugar cane bagasse ash by selective grinding
and classification. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 89, 269–275. [CrossRef]
83. Zareei, S.A.; Ameri, F.; Bahrami, N. Microstructure, strength, and durability of eco-friendly concretes containing sugarcane
bagasse ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 258–268. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Buildings 13 00843 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings 13 00843 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Buildings 2023, 13, 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13040843 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

2. Materials and Methods

burning of the bagasse is at a temperature of 600 ◦ C with a burning level of 3 h and a

(a) (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

To continue theTotests, three the

Cementitious Consumption ofConsumption

10 396.030 37.6 308.0148.5 84.0 247.5

(a) (b) (c)

Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

The SCBA’s chemical composition as a function of the principal oxides by XRF is

Portland Cement SCBA G SCBA RG

Table 3. Pozzolanic activity of SCBA.

0% 10 20 30 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30%

CC CC SCBA CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG

CC CC SCBA CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG

Compressive strength (MPa)

CC CC SCBA CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG

CC Reference CC SCBA G CC SCBA RG

Figure 13. Compressive strength of mortars with the fixed flow.

Table 5. Comparisons between cement orof

RG 10% 462.4 28.5 1.49 0.50 11.60 12.31

10% 462.4 32.7 1.49 0.50 10.90 11.67

Table 6. Comparisons between cement or agglomerate consumption due to compression strength of

Clinker SCBA Clinker Binder

10% 467.7 28.8 1.42 0.48 15.02 15.95

Clinker SCBA Clinker Binder

CC SCBA G 20% 395.4 62.9 1.73 0.60 11.09 12.86

Cost of ash in relation to cement

Buildings 2023, 13, 843 0.7 CCQ 16 of 21

CCQ SCBA G 10%

0.1 CCQ SCBA RG 20%

Figure 16. Comparison

0.4 CCB SCBA RGCCB

levels 10of tensile strength in flexion

caused by ASR. caused by ASR.

Figure 18. Flexural strength

Buildings 2023, 13, 843 17 of 21

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.C.N.F.F. and A.C.d.S.B.; methodology, M.C.N.F.F.

You might also like