buildings
Article
Study on Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of
Concrete with Fly Ash Cenosphere as Fine
Aggregate—A Sustainable Approach
M Kowsalya , S Sindhu Nachiar *, Anandh Sekar and P. T. Ravichandran
Citation: Kowsalya, M.; Sindhu
Nachiar, S.; Sekar, A.; Ravichandran,
P.T. Study on Mechanical and
Microstructural Properties of
Concrete with Fly Ash Cenosphere as
Fine Aggregate—A Sustainable
Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 1679.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12101679
Academic Editor: Bassem O.
Andrawes
Received: 30 August 2022
Accepted: 10 October 2022
Published: 12 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101679
Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur 603203, India
* Correspondence: sindhus@srmist.edu.in (S.S.N.)
Abstract: The utilization of waste materials in concrete lowers its cost, and this method of dealing with
the problem of trash disposal is viewed as the most environmentally friendly. Fly Ash Cenospheres
(FAC) are one of the principal wastes produced by coal power stations. The huge volume of FAC
produced worldwide has created a sustainability challenge, owing to the potential implications of
inappropriate disposal. Using cenospheres in concrete materials would make effective and efficient
use of these waste products while also supplementing what the present raw material, such as river
sand, can supply for concrete material production. Though the application of FAC in concrete is
currently carried out by the construction industry, there is still a lack of understanding about its
performance in concrete with Manufactured Sand (M Sand) as fine aggregate. Therefore, in this paper,
a comprehensive study explores the concept of adding FAC to M Sand concrete. The properties of
fresh and hardened concrete, such as density, workability, compression, split tensile, flexure, and
impact resistance after the addition of FAC in volume replacement (0–100% with a difference of 5% at
thirteen different ratios) is represented, followed by microstructural analysis. From the results, it can
be concluded that strength reduction takes place as FAC content increases from 0–100%, however,
the strength is within the target limit of 31.2 N/mm2 of conventional concrete (CC) of grade M25
when the percentage replacement is below 35% of volume. Therefore, reducing the volume of fine
aggregate does not negatively affect the strength properties, but also impacts the environmental
concern positively with optimum recommendation of 35% of fine aggregate as FAC.
Keywords: fly ash cenosphere; manufactured sand; fine aggregate replacement; sustainability;
volume replacement
1. Introduction
Concrete is one of the world’s most widely used construction materials [1]. Aggregates,
the essential constituents of concrete, occupy 70–80% of the volume formation. Their impact
on concrete has various characteristics and properties, such as reduction in shrinkage
and increase of strength, which are undoubtedly considerable [2]. During the last few
decades, due to the increase of population and urbanization, the usage of aggregates
in construction activity has increased rapidly [3]. In view of this, the usage of natural
aggregate sources is increasing, thus leading to its non-availability and scarcity. To alleviate
this and nurture a sustainable environment in the future, engineers have been challenged to
utilize wastes from the industry as new and alternative building construction materials [4,5].
This provided ample opportunity for introducing industrial waste as a viable option in
order to prevent the excessive use of natural resources [6]. In olden days, due to the
large amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) were utilized as a partial replacement for large amounts of cement in
concrete, which were recycled from industrial waste. For example, Feng et al., [7,8] utilized
industrial wastes such as fly ash (FA) and nano silica (NS) to recycle aggregate concrete as
SCMs in order to improve its pozzolanic reaction and mechanical properties.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
 large amounts of cement in concrete, which were recycled from industrial waste. For
example, Feng et al., [7,8] utilized industrial wastes such as fly ash (FA) and nano silica
(NS) to recycle aggregate concrete as SCMs in order to improve its pozzolanic reaction
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 and mechanical properties. 2 of 21
The rise in industrialization increased the amount of waste generation to 960 MT
solid, of which, inorganic waste from mining sector contributes 290 MT [9]. Different
types of industrial
The rise wastes are generated,
in industrialization increased such as coal bottom
the amount of waste ash [10–14], copper
generation to 960slagMT[15–
18],
solid, of furnace slag [19,20],
which, inorganic wasteferrochrome
from mining slag [21], contributes
sector fly ash [22–26],290 MToil palm shell [27–29]
[9]. Different types and
coconut shell
of industrial wastes[30–34] that are used
are generated, suchas as
a partial or full replacement
coal bottom of aggregates
ash [10–14], copper (both fine
slag [15–18],
and slag
furnace coarse) in concrete
[19,20], production.
ferrochrome Fly ash
slag [21], (FA)[22–26],
fly ash is a majoroil indispensable
palm shell [27–29] sourceand that is
abundantly
coconut produced.
shell [30–34] that areIt used
accounts
as a for around
partial 800
or full MT production
replacement worldwide
of aggregates (botheachfineyear,
and mainly
coarse)by in China,
concrete production.
India, the United FlyStates,
ash (FA)andisEurope
a major indispensable source that is
[35].
abundantly produced.
In India, the FAIt generated
accounts for around
from 800 MT plants
coal thermal production
is usedworldwide
in variouseach year,
applications
mainly by China,
(Figure 1) such India, the United
as cement, States, and
production Europe
of bricks and[35].
tiles, mine filling, roads and flyovers,
In India, theofFA
reclamation generated
low-lying fromash
areas, coal thermal
dyke plants
raising, is used in sector,
hydropower variousand applications
concrete pro-
(Figure 1) such
duction. as cement,ofproduction
Irrespective its enormous of bricks and tiles,
applications in mine filling,
concrete, its roads
usage and flyovers,
is still limited to
reclamation
1/4th of of its low-lying
production. areas, ash dyke
In order raising,
to utilize thehydropower
FA, numerous sector, and concrete
studies pro-
were conducted,
duction. Irrespective of its enormous applications in concrete,
which suggested the incorporation of FA value-added products (unburnt carbon [36],its usage is still limited
to 1/4th of its production.
cenosphere In order to
[37–40], plerosphere utilize
[41], the FA,[42])
magnetite numerous studies were conducted,
into concrete.
which suggested the incorporation of FA value-added products (unburnt carbon [36],
cenosphere [37–40], plerosphere [41], magnetite [42]) into concrete.

Cement, 25.06%

Unutilized Fly ash,

37.31% Mine Filling, 6%

Others, 4.69%
Bricks and tiles, 7.30%

Reclamation of low
Hydropower
lying area, 8.45%
Sector, 0.00%
Ash dyke raising,
Concrete, 0.51% 6.07%
Agriculture, 1.00% Roads and flyovers,
3.60%

Figure 1. Report
Figure on flyon
1. Report ash
flygeneration at coal/lignite-based
ash generation thermal
at coal/lignite-based power power
thermal stationsstations
and its and
utilization
its utiliza-
tion
in the in thefor
country country for the
the years years 2020–21,
2020–2021, CentralCentral Electricity
Electricity Authority,
Authority, ThermalThermal Civil Division,
Civil Design Design Divi-
Newsion,
DelhiNew
[37].Delhi [37].

Out Out
of allofmentioned
all mentionedconstituents, fly ash
constituents, flycenosphere
ash cenosphere (FAC) (FAC)
is the most
is thepeculiar by-
most peculiar
product, having various characteristics such as lightweightness, high
by-product, having various characteristics such as lightweightness, high compressive compressive strength
and strength
fire-resistance [43]. The name[43].
and fire-resistance “cenosphere”
The nameis“cenosphere”
derived from two Greek words:
is derived from two kenosGreek
(hollow)
words:andkenos
sphaira (sphere)
(hollow) and[44]. The coal
sphaira combustion
(sphere) [44]. The in thermal power plants
coal combustion produces
in thermal power
fly ash comprising
plants producesceramicfly ash particles
comprising mostly
ceramiccomposed
particles ofmostly
alumina and silica.
composed of They
alumina are and
formed at temperatures
silica. They are formed ranging
at temperatures 1750 ◦ C (2730
from 1500 to ranging from to 3180
1500
◦ F) through a complex
to 1750 °C (2730 to 3180 °F)
chemical
throughand aphysical
complex process [45]. and
chemical The incorporation
physical process of FAC[45].inThe
concrete has been studied
incorporation of FAC in
by different
concrete has been studied by different authors, however, they all had atosimilar
authors, however, they all had a similar objective, which was understand
objective,
the performance
which was toofunderstand
FAC through thebinder and aggregate
performance of FACreplacement.
through binder Kannan
and et al., [46] re-
aggregate
investigated
placement. FAC as a replacement
Kannan for binder in FAC
et al., [46] investigated cement as mortar for seven
a replacement fordifferent
binder in ratios
cement
(0%,mortar
5%, 10%,for15%,
seven 20%, 25%, 30%)
different ratiosand(0%,concluded
5%, 10%,that 15%, the20%,
strength
25%, properties of the FAC that
30%) and concluded
combination
the strength wasproperties
nearly equal to FAC
of the conventional
combination mortar.
wasAdditionally,
nearly equal to they observed that
conventional mortar.
it the strength properties were increased by adding silica
Additionally, they observed that it the strength properties were increased fume. The same wasby reported
adding sil-
by Hanif et al.,
ica fume. The[47] wherein
same the strength
was reported enhancement
by Hanif et al., [47]was performed
wherein by adding
the strength nano
enhancement
silica to 30% of binder replaced with FAC. Zhou and Brooks
was performed by adding nano silica to 30% of binder replaced with FAC. Zhou [48] concluded that FAC and
was Brooks
a successful filler material for the production of lightweight
[48] concluded that FAC was a successful filler material for the production concrete until a 50% of
replacement in volume of fine aggregate. The author also inferred
lightweight concrete until a 50% replacement in volume of fine aggregate. The author that FAC introduction
effectively reduced the density and workability. Patel et al., [49] studied FAC as a fine
aggregate replacement to natural sand with 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% replacement,
and evaluated various properties such as workability, compression strength, split tensile
strength, and flexural strength. The results indicated that an increase of FAC content
decreased the concrete density and strength, which was further enhanced by introducing
super-plasticizers.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 3 of 21

Although the use of FAC can effectively improve the mechanical properties with
reduced concrete density when it is substituted in place of natural river sand, studies
regarding the combined use of FAC and M sand (emerging fine aggregate, a duly replaced
natural fine aggregate) are still lacking. Due to the different microstructures of FAC and
M sand, it is necessary to study the mechanical and microstructural properties of fly ash
cenosphere concrete (FACC) to validate the feasibility of FAC in engineering applications.
In this study, the fresh and hardened concrete properties, such as the density, workability,
compression, split tensile strength, flexure, impact resistance, and non-destructiveness
of FACC are discussed. Since the microstructure of the concrete is equally important for
any new combination of concrete constituents, Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) study
and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) study is discussed for the different ages. The purpose of this
investigation is to explore the optimal amount of the FAC analyzed to provide a reference
for engineering FAC applications with good performance.

2. Materials and Methods

Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) as per IS 12269:1987 [50] is used as a binder through-
out the study. M Sand with a maximum size of 4.75mm, conforming to Zone II, as per IS
383:2016 [51] is used as a fine aggregate. Coarse aggregate (CA) with a maximum size of
10 mm was used. The physical properties of binder and aggregates is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Physical Properties of OPC and Crushed Stone Aggregate.

Property OPC CA Limiting Value

OPC—3–3.15
Specific Gravity 3.10 2.67
CA—2.5–3
Consistency (%) 32 - 25–35%
Initial Setting Time (min) 44 - ≥30 min
Final Setting Time (min) 429 - ≤600 min
Soundness (mm) 2 - 6>10mm
Size ≤90 µm ≥4.75 mm–10 mm -
Aggregate Zone - Zone II -
Flakiness Index (%) - 8 6>15%
Elongation Index (%) - 7 6>15%
Impact Resistance (%) - 18.22 6>30%
Crushing Strength (%) - 12.73 6>30%
Abrasion Value (%) - 11.7 6>30%

The FAC used in the study were collected from a locally available factory. In practice,
they are of different sizes, and are processed through wet and dry separation techniques.
In this investigation, most of the sizes range from 100–500 µm, as shown in Figure 2, which
was carried out through SEM analysis. The FAC are spherically shaped, having a smooth
surface texture. FAC and M Sand were used in surface dry condition. The specific gravity
is 0.73 for FAC and 2.70 for M Sand. From the sieve analysis, the fineness modulus is found
to be 1.97 for FAC and 3.32 for M Sand. The particle size distribution of FAC is compared
with M Sand, as shown in Figure 3. It is observed that FAC falls under the upper and lower
limit of fine aggregate gradation, as per IS 383: 2016 [51], even though it has lower fineness
modulus and specific gravity than M sand.
Thirteen mix proportions were prepared. Concrete with M Sand is considered as
Conventional Concrete (CC) and adopted a strength of 25 N/mm2 . According to the codal
provision of IS 10262:2019 [52], the mix ratio used for CC is 1:1.95:1.96. FAC were added
at different ratios varying from 10 to 100% by equal volume replacement of M Sand by
FAC. Table 2 shows thirteen different types of mix proportions for the series of tests to be
conducted. In order to determine the properties of fly ash cenosphere concrete (FACC),
different tests were conducted, as illustrated in Table 3.
 provision of IS 10262:2019
provision [52],
of ISthe mix ratio[52],
10262:2019 usedthe
formix
CC is 1:1.95:1.96.
ratio used forFAC were
CC is added
1:1.95:1.96.
at different ratiosatvarying from
different 10 to
ratios 100% by
varying equal
from volume
10 to 100% replacement of M Sand
by equal volume by
replaceme
FAC. Table 2 shows thirteen different types of mix proportions for the series of tests to be
FAC. Table 2 shows thirteen different types of mix proportions for the se
conducted. In order to determine the properties of fly ash cenosphere concrete (FACC),
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679
conducted. In order to determine the properties of fly ash cenosphere
4 of 21
c
different tests were conducted, as illustrated in Table 3.
different tests were conducted, as illustrated in Table 3.

Figure 2. SEM Image of Fly Ash Cenosphere.

Figure
Figure 2. SEM ImageImage
2. SEM of Fly Ash
of Cenosphere.
Fly Ash Cenosphere.
120

120
100

100
80
Percentage Passing (%)

80
Percentage Passing (%)

60 IS 386 (Upper Limit)

IS 386 (Lower Limit)
60 M Sand
IS 386 (Up
40 FAC
IS 386 (Lo
M Sand
40 FAC
20

20
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve Size (mm)
0
Figure 3.0.001 0.01
Particle Size Distribution Curve. 0.1 1 10
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution Curve. Sieve Size (mm)
Table 2. Mix Proportion.
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution Curve.
Table 2. Mix Proportion.
M SAND Coarse w/c Volume
Mix ID Cement (kg/m3 ) FAC (kg/m3 )
(kg/m3 ) Aggregate (kg/m3 ) Ratio Replacement (%)
Table 2. Mix Proportion. Coarse
CC 430.00 Cement M SAND
838.72 - FAC 845.05 0.50w/c Volume
0 Re-
FACC5 Mix ID430.00 796.78 11.55 Aggregate
845.05 0.50 5
FACC10 430.00 (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
754.85 (kg/m3)
23.11 845.05 3 RatioCoarse
0.50 placement
10 (%)
FACC15 430.00 Cement34.66 M SAND
(kg/m )
845.05 FAC w/c
Mix 712.91
ID 0.50
Aggregate 15
FACC20 CC 430.00 430.00 670.98
838.72 3) - (kg/m3)845.05
(kg/m46.21 845.05(kg/m3) 0.500.50 20 0 Ratio
FACC25 430.00
FACC5430.00
629.04
430.00 587.10
796.78
57.76
11.55
845.05
845.05
0.50 (kg/m )
325
FACC30 69.32 845.05 0.500.50 30 5
FACC35 FACC10430.00 CC
430.00 545.17
754.85430.00
80.87
23.11 838.72 845.05 -
845.05 0.500.50 845.05 35 10 0.50
FACC40 430.00 503.23 92.42 845.05 0.50 40
FACC45 FACC15430.00 FACC5
430.00 712.91430.00
461.30 34.66 796.78 845.05
103.97 845.0511.55 0.500.50 845.0545 15 0.50
FACC50
FACC20430.00 FACC10
430.00 670.98430.00
419.36
46.21 754.85 845.05
115.53
845.0523.11 0.50
0.50 845.0550 20 0.50
FACC75 430.00 209.68 173.29 845.05 0.50 75
FACC100 FACC25430.00 FACC15
430.00 - 629.04430.00 57.76 712.91 845.05
231.05 845.0534.66 0.500.50 845.05100 25 0.50
FACC30 FACC20587.10430.00 69.32 670.98
430.00 845.0546.21 0.50 845.05 30 0.50
FACC35 FACC25545.17430.00 80.87 629.04
430.00 845.0557.76 0.50 845.05 35 0.50
FACC40 FACC30503.23430.00 92.42 587.10
430.00 845.0569.32 0.50 845.05 40 0.50
FACC45 FACC35461.30430.00103.97545.17
430.00 845.0580.87 0.50 845.05 45 0.50
FACC50 430.00
FACC40419.36430.00115.53503.23 845.0592.42 0.50 845.05 50 0.50
FACC75 430.00
FACC45209.68430.00173.29461.30 845.05
103.97 0.50 845.05 75 0.50
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 5 of

Buildings 2022,Buildings
12, 1679 2022, 12, 1679 5 of 21 5 of
of
Buildings2022,
Buildings
Buildings 2022,12,
2022, 12,1679
12, 1679
1679 555of
of
Table 3. Experiments Conducted and Number of Samples Cast in this Study.

Sl.No. Test Conducted

Table 3. Experiments
Table 3.
Table Specimen
Conducted and
3. Experiments
Experiments Dimension
Number
Conducted
Conducted and
and * Cast
of Samples
Number
Number
in this Study.
of Samples
of Samples No.
Cast in
Cast ofStudy.
in this
this Specimens **
Study.
Table 3. Experiments Conducted and Number of Samples Cast in this Study.
Sl.No. Sl.No.
Sl.No.
Sl.No. Test
Compressive
TestTest Conducted
Conducted
Test Strength
Conducted
Conducted Specimen Dimension
Specimen Dimension
Specimen
Specimen Dimension
Dimension * *** For of
No. CC No. ofSpecimens
-1of Specimens
Mix;
Specimens
No.
No. of 9**
Specimens **total
Cubes **
in
**
No. of Specimens **
1 Test as per IS 516:2018 For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Cubes each mix;
Compressive
Compressive Strength
Strength For CC
For CCtotal
-1 Mix;
-1 Mix; 9cubes
Cubes in in total
total
Compressive[53] Strength For CCFor-1 CC
Mix;-19 Mix;
Cubes 10899in Cubes
Cubes
total in total
Compressive
1 TestStrength
as per Test
IS as per
516:2018 For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Cubes each mix
1 11 Testas
Test asper
perIS
IS516:2018
516:2018 For
ForFor FACC-12
FACC-12
FACC-12 Mix;Mix; 9Mix;
Cubes99Cubes
Cubes eachmix;
each each mix
IS 516:2018[53]
[53] total 108 cubes
[53]
[53] total
mix; totaltotal
108 cubes 108cubes
108 cubes
For CC-1 Mix; 9 Cylinders in total
Split Tensile Strength
2. For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Cylinder each mix
Test as per IS 516:2018 For CC-1
For CC-1 Mix;
Mix; 9 Cylinders
Cylinders in in total
total
Split
Split
Split Tensile
TensileTest
Tensile Strength
Strength
Strength For For
CC-1 Mix; total
CC-1 9Mix;
Cylinders99Cylinders
108 cylinder
in total in total
Split
2. Tensile Strength as per For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Cylinder each m
2. 2.2. Test
Test as per
as per IS 516:2018
516:2018 For For
For FACC-12
FACC-12
FACC-12 Mix;Mix;Mix; 99Cylinder
9 Cylinder Cylinder
each eacheachmix mi
IS as
Test per ISIS516:2018
516:2018
total
mix; total total 108
108 cylinder cylinder
108cylinder
cylinder
total 108
For CC-1 Mix; 9 Prism in total
Flexural Strength Test
3. For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Prism each mix;
as per IS 516:2018 ForCC-1
For CC-1
CC-1 Mix;
Mix; 9Prism
Prismin in total
total
Flexural
Flexural Strength
Strength Test
Test For
For CC-1 Mix; 9 Mix;
totalPrism 10899in Prism
total intotal
Beam
3. Flexural Strength
Flexural Test
Strength as per
Test For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Prism
Prism each mix
mix
3. 3.3. IS
asas516:2018
as perIS
per
per IS516:2018
IS 516:2018
516:2018
For
ForFor FACC-12
FACC-12
FACC-12 Mix;Mix; 9Mix;
Prism99Prism
each eacheach mix;
Impact Strength Test as mix; total
For CC-1 total
108
total
total Mix; 108
Beam
108
108 Beam
Beamin total
9 Beam
discs
4. per ACI committee For FACC-12 Mix; 9 Cylinder each mix
Impact
Impact Strength
Strength Test as
Test as ForMix;
For CC-1
CC-1 Mix;
Mix; 9Disc
discs inin total
total
ImpactImpact 544.1R-82
Strength Test as [54]
Strength perTest
ACIas
For CC-1
For CC-1 9 Mix;
totaldiscs 9in9discs
108 discs
total in total
4. 4. per ACI committee For For FACC-12
FACC-12 Mix; Mix;
9 9
Cylinder Cylinder
each each mim
4.4. committeeperACI
per ACIcommittee
committee
544.1R-82 [54] Core samples of Tested ForFACC-12
For FACC-12Mix; Mix;99Cylinder
Cylindereach each mix
544.1R-82
Microstructural
544.1R-82[54] [54]
Analy-
[54] mix; total 108
total
total108Disc
108
108Disc Disc
Disc
544.1R-82 Specimens under compression, Split and total
5. Microstructuralsis Core samples
Core samples ofofTested
Tested For all CC and FACC mix
Microstructural Analysis
Analy- Coresamples
Core
flexure samples ofTested
of Tested
testcompression,
were taken Split
5. Microstructural
[SEM and XRD] Analy- Specimens under For all CC and FACC mix
Microstructural
[SEM and XRD] Analy- Specimens under
Specimens under compression,
compression, Split
Split and
and
5.
5.5. sis
sis
sis Specimens andunder
flexurecompression,
test were takenSplit and Forall
For
For allCC
all CCand
CC andFACC
and FACCmix
FACC mix
mix
flexure
flexure
flexure test
test
test were
were
were taken
taken
taken
[SEM and
Non-Destructive
[SEM and XRD]
XRD] Test-
[SEM and XRD]
ing as per
Non-Destructive Testing as per TheThe samples
samples werewere testedtested
beforebefore pro-
6. 6. Non-Destructive
Non-Destructive Test-
Test-
Non-Destructive
IS 13311 Part (1) 1992
IS 13311 Part (1) 1992 Test-
[55] proceeding the compression
ceeding the compression test test
ing
ing as
as per
per The
The samples
samples were
were tested
tested before pro-
before pro
6. ing[55]
as per The samples were tested before pro-
6.6. IS 13311
IS13311
IS 13311Part Part
Part(1) (1)
(1) 1992
1992 IS 516:2018, the size of the specimen (100 mm) is used ceeding
ceeding the compression
thecompression
compression test
test
* As per * 1992
As perthe
IS 516:2018,
ceeding
size of the specimen (100 mm) is used as alternate for nominal
the
as alternate
size of the for aggregate,
nominal size test of the
[55]
[55] aggregate,
which[55]
does not exceed 20 which does
mm. ** All thenot exceed
samples 20 under
were mm. ** All the samples
water-cured were
condition and under
were testedwater-cured
at the agecondition
of an
**As
Asper
*were
7, 14, and 28 days.
As perISIS
per IS516:2018,
tested 516:2018,
at
516:2018, the
the agethe size
of size
the 7, of
14,ofof
size the28
and
the
the specimen (100mm)
days. (100
specimen
specimen (100 mm)isis
mm) isused
usedas
used asalternate
as alternatefor
alternate fornominal
for nominalsize
nominal
* As per IS 516:2018, the size of the specimen (100 mm) is used as alternate for nominal size of the
sizeofof
size ofthe
th
th
aggregate,which
aggregate,
aggregate, whichdoes
which doesnot
does notexceed
not exceed20
exceed 20mm.
20 mm.****
mm. **All
Allthe
All thesamples
the sampleswere
samples wereunder
were underwater-cured
under water-curedcondition
water-cured conditionan
condition aa
3.were
3. Results were
and tested
Discussion
Results
were at
testedand
tested the age of
Discussion
atatthe
the 7, 14,
ageofof7,7,14,
age and
14,and 28
and28 days.
28days.
days.
The fresh concrete
The freshproperties such as density,
concrete properties such asworkability and hardened
density, workability and concrete
hardened concre
3.Results
3. Resultsand
Results andDiscussion
and Discussion
Discussion
properties 3.
like compressive
properties like strength, flexural
compressive strength
strength, andstrength
flexural split tensile
andstrength results
split tensile are
strength resu
representedare Thefresh
The 4fresh
fresh
inrepresented
Table
The concrete
concrete
andconcrete
explained
in properties
4properties
in the
Table properties
and suchas
such
subsequent
explained
such asthe
as
in density,
density,
sections. workability
workability
subsequent
density, andhardened
and
sections.
workability and hardenedconcre
hardened concr
concr
properties like
properties like compressive
compressive strength,
strength, flexural
flexural strength
strength and
and split
split tensile
tensile strength
strength resu
resu
properties like compressive strength, flexural strength and split tensile strength resul
are represented
are represented in TableTable 44 and
and explained
explained inin the
the subsequent
subsequent sections.
sections.
are represented ininTable 4 and explained in the subsequent sections.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 6 of 21

Table 4. Fresh and Hardened Concrete Values of CC and FACC Mixes.

Compressive Strength Split Tensile Strength

Density (kg/m3 ) Standard Deviation Standard Deviation Flexural Strength (N/mm2 ) Standard Deviation
Mix ID (N/mm2 ) (N/mm2 )
Fresh Hardened 7d 14 d 28 d 7d 14 d 28 d 7d 14 d 28 d 7d 14 d 28 d 7d 14 d 28 d 7d 14 d 28 d
CC 2523 2450 28.90 34.60 38.40 0.72 0.82 0.81 2.38 3.27 3.60 0.71 0.67 0.70 1.80 4.03 5.60 0.26 0.50 1.23
FACC5 2508 2430 27.70 34.30 37.50 0.60 0.79 0.72 2.26 3.24 3.57 0.59 0.64 0.67 1.77 4.01 5.48 0.23 0.48 1.11
FACC10 2483 2411 25.70 32.80 36.70 0.40 0.64 0.64 2.21 3.15 3.46 0.54 0.55 0.56 1.72 3.97 5.21 0.18 0.44 0.84
FACC15 2446 2375 25.70 31.00 35.10 0.40 0.40 0.48 2.02 3.03 3.37 0.35 0.43 0.47 1.69 3.84 4.89 0.15 0.31 0.52
FACC20 2407 2337 24.10 29.10 34.10 0.20 0.28 0.38 1.87 2.90 3.24 0.20 0.30 0.34 1.67 3.77 4.78 0.13 0.24 0.41
FACC25 2352 2284 22.20 28.60 33.70 0.58 0.22 0.34 1.81 2.84 3.19 0.14 0.24 0.29 1.58 3.65 4.65 0.40 0.12 0.28
FACC30 2318 2251 22.00 27.70 32.70 0.38 0.13 0.24 1.61 2.66 3.01 0.18 0.65 0.11 1.54 3.54 4.40 0.80 0.45 0.38
FACC35 2261 2206 21.40 26.30 32.10 0.25 0.98 0.94 1.54 2.57 2.98 0.10 0.70 0.84 1.47 3.47 4.20 0.10 0.19 0.20
FACC40 2226 2171 19.50 24.50 28.50 1.18 1.82 1.04 1.40 2.55 2.82 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.44 3.42 3.98 0.90 0.10 0.40
FACC45 2184 2131 19.00 22.30 26.50 1.64 0.40 0.37 1.34 2.40 2.68 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.41 3.39 3.87 0.36 1.10 0.50
FACC50 2143 2084 18.60 20.80 24.10 1.02 0.54 0.98 1.29 2.10 2.34 0.40 0.50 0.60 1.40 3.26 3.65 0.10 0.30 0.70
FACC75 1885 1833 15.00 16.80 19.40 0.60 0.94 0.78 1.19 1.79 2.00 0.50 0.80 0.90 1.30 2.88 3.20 0.20 0.70 1.20
FACC100 1654 1609 11.60 13.40 14.80 0.94 0.59 0.76 0.84 1.25 1.39 0.80 1.40 1.50 1.20 2.66 2.95 0.30 0.90 1.40
* The above values represent the average strength for a minimum of three concrete specimens at different ages.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 7 of 21

3.1. Fresh Concrete Properties

The fresh density of the CC is 2523 kg/m3 . The fresh density is found to be 2508 kg/m3
for FACC5, 2483 kg/m3 for FACC10, 2446 kg/m3 for FACC15, 2407 kg/m3 for FACC20,
2352 kg/m3 for FACC25, 2318 kg/m3 for FACC30, 2261 kg/m3 for FACC35, 2226 kg/m3 for
FACC40, 2184 kg/m3 for FACC45, 2143 kg/m3 for FACC50, 1885 kg/m3 for FACC75, and
1654 kg/m3 for FACC100. As compared to CC, the fresh densities of the FACC mixes are re-
duced in the range of 0.60–34.45%. Additionally, a similar trend is exhibited in the hardened
densities of the FACC mixes. The hardened density of CC is 2450 kg/m3 , which reduces to
2430 kg/m3 for FACC5, 2411 kg/m3 for FACC10, 2375‘kg/m3 for FACC15, 2337 kg/m3
for FACC20, 2284 kg/m3 for FACC25, 2251 kg/m3 for FACC30, 2206 kg/m3 for FACC35,
2171 kg/m3 for FACC40, 2131 kg/m3 for FACC45, 2084 kg/m3 for FACC50, 1833 kg/m3
for FACC75, and 1609 kg/m3 for FACC100. As compared to the CC, the hardened densities
of the FACC mixes are reduced in the range of 0.80–34.32%. McBride et al., Ref. [56] also
inferred the same results when incorporating FAC in reducing the concrete density. The
decreasing trend of fresh and hardened density becomes notable at higher fraction of FAC.
This reduction of the density of concrete is due to the low density and hollow nature of
the FAC. Additionally, the rate of decrement of hardened density is more prominent than
that of fresh density because of water of absorption of the specimen during its drying
process. It is significant that all the FACC mixes achieved hardened densities in the range
of 2430–1609 kg/m3 , which is a satisfactory reduction of the density when compared to
the 2450 kg/m3 CC. A similar trend was observed by Blanco et al., Ref. [57] where the
researchers produced a density of 1510kg/m3 by effectively using the low density FAC in
lightweight concrete. Therefore, this suggests the possibility of reducing the density of con-
crete even further than the present study, which could potentially facilitate the preservation
of natural fine aggregate in the environment, in terms of replacing it with FAC.
The slump of the concrete i.e., 75 mm, reduces marginally to 72 mm, 69 mm, 64 mm,
59 mm, 57 mm, 52 mm, 49 mm, 45 mm, 39 mm, 31 mm, 25 mm, and 20 mm for replacement
of FAC with 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 75% and 100%, respectively,
as shown in Figure 4. Due to the hollow and spherical nature of the FAC particles, air
voids are created during the mixing process, which requires a higher amount of water to
promote a consistent and homogenous flow. This creates the necessity for a higher water
content when the replacement of FAC increases. When FAC is used, the wet mixing is done
at a higher rate when compared to the CC in order to a get a workable concrete. Since a
constant w/c ratio is maintained throughout the study, there is only a marginal decrease of
the slump of FACC concrete.

3.2. Compressive Strength

The compressive strength of the thirteen concrete mixes in which M Sand is replaced
with FAC with varying percentages of 0–100% at 7, 14, and 28 days are carried out. Ad-
ditionally, the variation of 7-, 14- and 28-days strength with respect to FAC is graphically
represented in Figure 5. The compressive strength of the CC is 28.90 N/mm2 at 7 days,
34.56 N/mm2 at 14 days, and 38.40 N/mm2 at 28 days. The strength values of the corre-
sponding mixes at 28 days are evaluated as 37.50 N/mm2 , 36.70 N/mm2 , 35.12 N/mm2 ,
34.13 N/mm2 , 33.70 N/mm2 , 32.70 N/mm2 , 32.10 N/mm2 , 28.47 N/mm2 , 26.50 N/mm2 ,
24.10 N/mm2 , 19.40 N/mm2 , and 14.80 N/mm2 , which are 2.34%, 4.43%, 8.54%, 11.12%,
12.24%, 14.84%, 16.41%, 25.87%, 30.99%, 37.24%, 49.48%, and 61.46% lower than that of
CC. The strength results show that an increase of FAC content results in a decrease of com-
pressive strength. Previous studies demonstrate that the incorporation of FAC in concrete
proportionally decreased its strength with its density. McBride et al., [56] investigated that
FAC replacement of 25% as FA to natural sand resulted in the reduction of the compres-
sive strength to 30%. Hanif et al., [47] revealed that compressive strength is reduced up
to 30% when cenosphere is incorporated as 10%, 20%, and 30% replacement. Similarly,
when comparing the previous work on the state of fine aggregate replacement, Basar [58]
reported that the compressive strength of concrete decreases with increasing proportion
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 8 of 21

of Waste Foundary Sand (WSF) from 0–40%. The same was observed by Aggarwal [59],
where equal replacement of WSF along with coal bottom ash (CBA) reduced the concrete
strength when the replacement was up to 60%. In the present study, the strength reduction
is 37.24% on 50% replacement, since most of the researchers studied the effect of FAC up
to 50% replacement. Therefore, the present study shows a higher efficiency in terms of
preserving the fine aggregate by replacing FAC. However, the decrease of strength of the
FACC is attributed to the following reasons:
1. Unfilled voids of FAC particles, which are prone to vulnerable cracking at higher loads.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 9 of 22
2. A high volume fraction of FAC increases the concrete’s internal porosity, leading to
poor packing density.

3000 80

70
2500
60
Denssity (kg/m3)

2000
50

Slump (mm)
Fresh
1500 40
Hardened
30
1000 Slump
20
500
10
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 10 of 22
0 0

supplementary cementitious material

Mixes and also by increasing the curing period, which
would also enhance the long-term strength of the concrete. In addition to the influence of
Figurereduced
Figure
FAC, 4.4.Fresh
Freshand
andHardened
Hardened
natural Densityof
Density
fine aggregateofhas
CCaand
CC and FACCalong
FACC
positive alongwith
effect with
on Slump.
Slump.
environmental concerns.

3.2. Compressive Strength

50.00
The compressive strength of the thirteen concrete mixes in which M Sand 7isDays replaced
45.00 14 Days
with FAC with varying percentages of 0–100% at 7, 14, and 28 days are carried out. Ad-
Compressive Strength (N/mm2 )

38.40 37.50
40.00 36.70
ditionally, the variation of 7-, 35.12 14- and 28-days strength with respect to FAC is graphically 28 Days
34.13 33.70 32.70
35.00
represented in Figure 5. The compressive strength of 32.10
the CC is 28.90 N/mm2 at 7 days,
28.47
34.5630.00
N/mm at 14 days, and 38.40 N/mm at 28 days. The strength
2 2 26.50 values of the corre-
24.10
sponding
25.00 mixes at 28 days are evaluated as 37.50 N/mm2, 36.70 N/mm2, 35.12 N/mm2,
19.40
34.1320.00
N/mm2, 33.70 N/mm2, 32.70 N/mm2, 32.10 N/mm2, 28.47 N/mm2, 26.50 N/mm2, 24.10
14.80
N/mm 2, 19.40 N/mm2, and 14.80 N/mm2, which are 2.34%, 4.43%, 8.54%, 11.12%, 12.24%,
15.00
14.84%,
10.00 16.41%, 25.87%, 30.99%, 37.24%, 49.48%, and 61.46% lower than that of CC. The
strength
5.00 results show that an increase of FAC content results in a decrease of compressive
strength.
0.00
Previous studies demonstrate that the incorporation of FAC in concrete pro-
portionally decreased its strength with its density. McBride et al., [56] investigated that
FAC replacement of 25% as FA to natural sand resulted in the reduction of the compres-
sive strength to 30%. Hanif et al., [47] revealed that compressive strength is reduced up to
30% when cenosphere is incorporatedMixes as 10%, 20%, and 30% replacement. Similarly,
when comparing the previous work on the state of fine aggregate replacement, Basar [58]
Figure 5. Variation of Compressive Strength
Figure Strength with
with Age
Age for
for CC
CCand
andFACC
FACCMixes.
Mixes.
reported that the compressive strength of concrete decreases with increasing proportion
of Waste
In Foundary Sand (WSF) from 0–40%. The same was observed by Aggarwal [59],
Asaddition, there 5,
seen in Figure is athe
decrease
concreteofmix
the with
early10%age FAC
strength
and of90%theMconcrete
Sand has due to weak
achieved
where equal
interfacial replacement of WSF along with coal bottom ash (CBA) reduced the concrete
maximum transition
compressive zone (ITZ) among
strength between allthe
FACC cement
mixes paste andN/mm
of 37.50 FAC, 2which
at the causes
age of 28 the
strengthstrength
inferior when the replacement was up the to 60%.
ITZ In the present study,athe 2 atstrength reduc-
days, which is lessbehaviour. However,
than the compressive strength characteristics
of CC, i.e., 38.40play N/mmpredominant
the age of role
28
tion is 37.24%
over on 50% replacement, since most of the researchers studiedbythetheeffect of FAC
days,the strength
however criteria.
,it satisfies This
the superior
criteria of M25strength
grade could
concrete,be increased
as per IS 10262:2019, addition
with aof
up to 50%
target replacement.
strength of 31.2 N/mm Therefore, the present
2. Additionally, study shows
FACC10, FACC15, a higher
FACC20,efficiency
FACC25, in terms
FACCof
preserving the fine aggregate by replacing FAC. However, the
30, and FACC35 fulfill the aforementioned requirement. However, from the compressive decrease of strength of the
FACC is attributed to the following reasons:
test results, it can be stated that the optimum FAC that can be used a partial replacement
1. M Unfilled
of voids
sand is 35%, of FAC
which is onparticles, which
the safer side, are prone
given to vulnerable
the environmental cracking
concerns at higher
regarding
loads.
the use of FAC as fine aggregate for further study.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 9 of 21

supplementary cementitious material and also by increasing the curing period, which
would also enhance the long-term strength of the concrete. In addition to the influence of
FAC, reduced natural fine aggregate has a positive effect on environmental concerns.
As seen in Figure 5, the concrete mix with 10% FAC and 90% M Sand has achieved
maximum compressive strength among all FACC mixes of 37.50 N/mm2 at the age of
28 days, which is less than the compressive strength of CC, i.e., 38.40 N/mm2 at the age of
28 days, however, it satisfies the criteria of M25 grade concrete, as per IS 10262:2019, with a
target strength of 31.2 N/mm2 . Additionally, FACC10, FACC15, FACC20, FACC25, FACC30,
and FACC35 fulfill the aforementioned requirement. However, from the compressive test
results, it can be stated that the optimum FAC that can be used a partial replacement of M
sand is 35%, which is on the safer side, given the environmental concerns regarding the use
of FAC as fine aggregate for further study.

3.3. Split Tensile Strength

The variation in split tensile strength of the thirteen mixes at 28 days is furnished in
Figure 6. Similar to compressive strength, the split tensile strength exhibits comparable
variation. The CC at 28 days of curing has a split value of 3.60 N/mm2 . In the case of
FACC mixes, the values of 28-days strength are 3.57 N/mm2 for FACC5, 3.46 N/mm2 for
FACC10, 3.37 N/mm2 for FACC15, 3.24 N/mm2 for FACC20, 3.19 N/mm2 for FACC25,
3.01 N/mm2 for FACC30, 2.98 N/mm2 for FACC35, 2.82 N/mm2 for FACC40, 2.68 N/mm2
for FACC45, 2.34 N/mm2 for FACC50, 2.00 N/mm2 for FACC75, and 1.39 N/mm2 for
FACC100. The corresponding split tensile values are reduced by 0.80%, 3.85%, 6.36%, 9.97%,
11.36%, 16.36%, 17.19%, 21.53%, 25.66%, 35.10%, 44.54%, and 61.36% as compared to the CC.
Limited studies regarding the split tensile strength of FAC incorporation were reported,
but in the cases studied by Basar [58] and Aggarwal [59], the strength reduced to nearly
30% when compared to control concrete when WFS and CBA were used as fine aggregate
replacement. Therefore, the predominance of the material i.e., in the present study, the FAC
content, is responsible for the strength reduction. The low shell strength of the FAC and its
brittle nature could be the causes for failure of the FAC concrete. The same was reported
by Newman et al., [60] in which cenosphere was found to be more brittle in nature when
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 11 of 22
compared to CC. This can be enhanced by the addition of fibers in FA concrete in order to
decrease its brittleness and increase its shell strength.

4.00 7 Days
3.60 3.57 3.46 3.37
Split Tensile Strength (N/mm2 )

3.24 3.19 14 Days

3.01 2.98
3.00 2.82 28 Days
2.68
2.34
2.00
2.00
1.39

1.00

0.00

Mixes

Figure6.6.Variation
Figure Variationof
ofSplit
SplitTensile
TensileStrength
Strengthwith
withAge
Age for
for CC
CC and
and FACC
FACC Mixes.
Mixes.

3.4.
3.4.Flexural
FlexuralStrength
Strength
As
Aswith
withcompression
compressionandand
splitsplit
tensile strength,
tensile a similar
strength, variation
a similar of flexural
variation strength
of flexural
isstrength
exhibited. The variation
is exhibited. Theofvariation
the thirteen mixes
of the at 28 mixes
thirteen days curing is shown
at 28 days in Figure
curing 7. The
is shown in
Figure 7. The CC has a flexural strength of 5.60 N/mm2. In case of FACC mixes, the values
of 28-days strength are 5.48 N/mm2 for FACC5, 5.21 N/mm2 for FACC10, 4.89 N/mm2 for
FACC15, 4.78 N/mm2 for FACC20, 4.65 N/mm2 for FACC25, 4.40 N/mm2 for FACC30,
4.20 N/mm2 for FACC35, 3.98 N/mm2 for FACC40, 3.87 N/mm2 for FACC45, 3.65 N/mm2
for FACC50, 3.20 N/mm2 for FACC75, and 2.95 N/mm2 for FACC100. When compared to
 Figure 6. Variation of Split Tensile Strength with Age for CC and FACC Mixes.

3.4. Flexural Strength

As with compression and split tensile strength, a similar variation of flexural
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 10 of 21
strength is exhibited. The variation of the thirteen mixes at 28 days curing is shown in
Figure 7. The CC has a flexural strength of 5.60 N/mm2. In case of FACC mixes, the values
of 28-days strength are 5.48 N/mm2 for FACC5, 5.21 N/mm 2 for FACC10, 4.89 N/mm2 for
CC has a flexural strength of 5.60 N/mm2 . In case of FACC mixes, the values of 28-days
FACC15, 4.78 N/mm 2 for FACC20, 4.65
strength are 5.48 N/mm2 for N/mm
FACC5,for
2 FACC25,
5.21 N/mm2 for 4.40FACC10,
N/mm24.89 forN/mm
FACC30,
2 for FACC15,
4.20 N/mm for FACC35,
2
4.78 N/mm 3.98
2 forN/mm 2
FACC20, for4.65
FACC40,
N/mm23.87 N/mm 4.40
for FACC25,
2 for N/mm
FACC45,2 for3.65 N/mm
FACC30,
2
4.20 N/mm2
for FACC50, 3.20for N/mm
FACC35, 3.98 N/mm2 for 2.95
2 for FACC75, and N/mm
FACC40, N/mm2 for FACC45,
2 for FACC100.
3.87 When3.65 N/mm2 to
compared for FACC50,
2 2
the CC, the corresponding
3.20 N/mm for flexural
FACC75,strengths
and 2.95 are
N/mm reduced by 2.14%,
for FACC100. When6.96%, 12.68%,
compared to the CC, the
14.64%, 16.96%, corresponding
21.43%, 25.00%, flexural strengths
28.93%, 30.89%,are 34.82%,
reduced by 2.14%,and
42.86%, 6.96%, 12.68%,respec-
47.32%, 14.64%, 16.96%,
21.43%, 25.00%, 28.93%, 30.89%, 34.82%, 42.86%, and 47.32%,
tively. A typical flexural strength of concrete is between 10–15% of its respective com- respectively. A typical flexural
strength of concrete is between 10–15% of its respective compressive strength [38] and
pressive strength [38] and the same can be observed in this study. However, the re-
the same can be observed in this study. However, the replacement of FAC proved to be
placement of FAC proved to be effective, and can be attributed to the same reason men-
effective, and can be attributed to the same reason mentioned for split tensile strength
tioned for split tensile strength
regarding regarding
its reduction its reduction
in flexural strength.in flexural strength.

7.00 7 Days
14 Days
6.00 5.60 5.48
5.21 28 Days
Flexural Strength(N/mm2)

4.89 4.78
5.00 4.65
4.40 4.20
3.98 3.87
4.00 3.65
3.20
2.95
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Mixes

Figure 7. VariationFigure
of Flexural Strength
7. Variation with Age
of Flexural for CC
Strength and
with FACC.
Age for CC and FACC.

3.5. Co-Relation between Compression to Split and Flexural Strength

The ratio of split and flexural strength value to compressive strength value at 28 days
for all the thirteen mixes is presented in Table 5. It is observed that the ratio of split-to-
compression and flexural-to-compression for CC is found to be 0.09 and 0.15, respectively.
The ratios for split-to-compression is found to be an average of 0.10, and lies within in
a range of 0.09–0.10. It is notable that all FACC mixes comprised of M Sand replaced
with FAC from 5–100% are equal or higher than those of CC. This indicates that FACC
mixes shows enhanced and superior performance in the split value. Similarly, for flexural-
to-compression, the ratio is found to be an average of 0.15, and the range lies between
0.13–0.20. Except for FACC 30 and FACC 35, the ratios are found to be equal or higher than
CC; however, there is still a slightly inferior performance demonstrated by the FACC mix
in flexural strength when compared to the split tensile strength of the concrete.
A comparative study of experimental split and flexural strength values to those
predicted values from various codal provisions are presented in Table 6. The 28-days
cube compressive strength (fc ) is taken for the empirical calculation. In case of cylindrical
compressive strength (f0 c ), cube compressive strength is multiplied by a factor of 0.8 [61].
The predicted split tensile strength (fsp ) and flexural strength (ft ) results are compared with
experimental values, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 11 of 21

Table 5. Ratio of Split and Flexural Strength Value to Compression Strength Value.

Split Split/ Flexural/

Mix Id Compressive Strength (N/mm2 ) Flexural Strength (N/mm2 )
Tensile Strength (N/mm2 ) Compression Compression
CC 38.40 3.60 5.60 0.09 0.15
FACC5 37.50 3.57 5.48 0.10 0.15
FACC10 36.70 3.46 5.21 0.09 0.14
FACC15 35.12 3.37 4.89 0.10 0.14
FACC20 34.13 3.24 4.78 0.09 0.14
FACC25 33.70 3.19 4.65 0.09 0.14
FACC30 32.70 3.01 4.40 0.09 0.13
FACC35 32.10 2.98 4.20 0.09 0.13
FACC40 28.47 2.82 3.98 0.10 0.14
FACC45 26.50 2.68 3.87 0.10 0.15
FACC50 24.10 2.34 3.65 0.10 0.15
FACC75 19.40 2.00 3.20 0.10 0.16
FACC100 14.80 1.39 2.95 0.09 0.20

Table 6. Predicted Formula for Split and Flexural Strength from Codal Provisions.

Split Tensile Strength Flexural Strength

fsp = 0.56 f 0 c
p p
ACI 318 [62]; IS 456: 2000 [63]; ft = 0.7 pf c
EHE [64]; fsp = 0.21 (f0 c )2/3 ACI 318 [62]; ft = 0.62 p f 0 c
dings 2022, 12, 1679 13 of
GB [65]; fsp = 0.19 (f0 c )0.75 CEB FIP [66]; ft = 0.81 f c
NBR 6118 [67]; fsp = 0.19 (fq0 )2/3
c p
CEB FIP [66]; f 0 c −8 2/3 DG/TJ [68]; ft = 0.75 fc
fsp = 1.56 ( 10 )

4
Exp ACI 318 EHE GB 10010 CEB FIP NBR 6118
3.5
Split Tensile Strength (N/mm2)

2.5

1.5

0.5

Mixes

FigureFigure 8. Comparison
8. Comparison ofofExperimental
Experimental Value
Valueto Predicted Split Tensile
to Predicted Values. Values.
Split Tensile
Figure 8 shows the predicted empirical values of split tensile strength calculated
6 from various codes along with experimental values. It is observed that for all the FACC
mixes, the predicted values ofExpsplit tensile
IS 456 strength
ACI 318are CEBFIP
comparatively
DG/TJlower than those
Flexural Strength Value (N/mm2)

5 of the experimental values. Similarly, in Figure 9, the experimental value of the FACC
mix is higher than the predicted value for the Indian Standard and ACI empirical formula.
Whereas, in the cases of CEB-FIP (Euro) and DG/TJ (Shanghai), the strength is relatively
4
higher for CC, FACC5, FACC10, FACC15, and FACC20, and lower in the cases of FACC25,
FACC30, FACC35, FACC40, FACC45, FACC50, FACC75 and FACC100. From this obser-
3 vation, it is concluded that the experimental values of the FACC mix are higher than the
corresponding predicted values. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that FAC can be used
2 as a replacement for M sand.

0
 0

Mixes
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 12 of 21
Figure 8. Comparison of Experimental Value to Predicted Split Tensile Values.

6
Exp IS 456 ACI 318 CEBFIP DG/TJ
Flexural Strength Value (N/mm2)

Mixes

Figure
Figure 9. Comparison
9. Comparison ofofExperimental
Experimental Value
ValuetotoPredicted Flexural
Predicted Tensile
Flexural Values.Values.
Tensile
3.6. Impact Strength
Figure 8 shows the predicted empirical values of split tensile strength calculated
The required number of blows to produce the initial crack and failure in terms of
fromimpact
various codes
energy are along
listed inwith
Tableexperimental values.
7. Similar to the trend ofItcompression,
is observedsplit,
thatand
forflexural
all the FACC
mixes, the predicted values of split tensile strength are comparatively
strength, the impact value of FACC is observed. From the results, it can be deduced lower than
thatthose of
the experimental
the failure energyvalues.
of FACCSimilarly, in Figure
is decreased 9, the
by 4.41%, experimental
11.76%, value 27.94%,
14.71%, 17.65%, of the FACC
29.41, mix is
47.06% 51.47% 63.24%, 64.70%, 66.18%, and 85.29% compared to that
higher than the predicted value for the Indian Standard and ACI empirical formula. of CC. This variation
in the impact strength can be attributed to the following reasons:
Whereas, in the cases of CEB-FIP (Euro) and DG/TJ (Shanghai), the strength is relatively
• Poor
higher for CC, interlocking
FACC5,betweenFACC10, the aggregates
FACC15,due and to the brittle nature
FACC20, and of FAC particles.
lower in the cases of
• Due to lightweight hollow aggregate phase (Specific gravity less than 1), the materials
FACC25, FACC30, FACC35, FACC40, FACC45, FACC50, FACC75 and FACC100. From
tend to initiate and propagate the cracks when the percentage replacement increases.
this observation, it is concluded that the experimental values of the FACC mix are higher
thanTable
the corresponding predicted
7. Variation in Impact values.
Energy of FACC Additionally,
Mixes with CC. it is worth mentioning that FAC
can be used as a replacement for M sand.
Impact Energy (J) Variation in
Mix ID Impact Energy (%)
Initial Crack Failure
3.6. Impact Strength
CC 1361.28 1383.43 -
The required
FACC5 number1219.06
of blows to produce
1322.40 the initial crack and
4.41 failure in terms of
impact energy
FACC10are listed in1200.33
Table 7. Similar 1220.67
to the trend of compression,
11.76 split, and flexural
strength, the impact value of FACC is observed. From the results,14.71
FACC15 1159.64 1179.98 it can be deduced that
FACC20 1078.26 1139.30 17.65
FACC25 976.54 996.88 27.94
FACC30 956.19 976.54 29.41
FACC35 691.71 732.40 47.06
FACC40 651.03 671.37 51.47
FACC45 488.27 508.61 63.24
FACC50 467.92 488.27 64.70
FACC75 427.24 467.92 66.18
FACC100 142.41 203.45 85.29

3.7. Microstructural Analysis

Microstructure of the concrete plays a significant role in concrete strength and dura-
bility, in which Interfacial Transition Zone (ITZ) between the cement paste and aggregate
is studied. To understand the performance of FAC in concrete, microstructural analyses
were carried out by Hi Resolution Scanning Electron Microscope (HRSEM) imaging using
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 13 of 21

Thermosceintific Apreo S. The core samples (tested specimens) were impregnated using an
ethanol solution, which was sprayed over the particle surface, and some polished samples
were sputter coated with the help of an electron beam in order to vacuumize the wet
moisture in the samples. Figures 10–13 present the microscopic image of CC and FACC at 1,
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 15 of 22
7, 14, and 28 days, respectively. The microscopic analysis is studied under less than 20 µm
scales. On the microscopic scale, the mixture of cement paste could be visible in the form
of hydrated products. Due to the hydration process, clusters of Calcium Silicate Hydrate
ettringites.
(CSH), needleThisandconfirms that the
flaky shaped systematic
ettringites, hydrationamorphous
unreacted of the cement paste was
calcium carriedis
hydroxide
out. When
formed, which compared to CC,
can be seen theFigures
in all peak intensity
10, 11, value
12 anddid notSimilar
13a. substantially
to CC,vary from the
the same was
FACC mix
observed (the peak
in FACC intensity
mixes, varied
as shown in in the range
Figures of 200–400
10, 11, counts).
12 and 13b. With the
Refined, develop-
compact, and
ment of the curing period, the hydration phase could be observed in both
dense microstructure is found in the FACC mix when compared to CC. FAC of different FACC and CC,
which
sizes confirms
are also the strength
seen with partiallydevelopment. Therefore,ones.
reacted and unreacted a similar pattern
Higher was observed
magnification in
revealed
both CC and FACC.
the ettringite formation in various shapes, such needle-like, flaky, and slender types.

1000
CC - 1st Day
900 M - Mullite CSH
E - Ettringite
800 CC - Calcite CH Ettringites
CH - Portlandite CSH CSH
CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate M
700
Lobs [cts]

600
Voids
500 CSH Long and Needle Like
Ettringite
M CSH
400

300

200 M
E E E CSH E E CC
100 E E E
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(a)
1000
FACC - 1st Day MS covered with
900 M - Mullite Cement Paste
E - Ettringite
800
CC - Calcite CSH

700 CH - Portlandite M FAC covered with

CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate Cement Paste
Lobs [cts]

600
Long and Needle Like
500 Ettringite

Ettringites
400 M CSH

300 CSH

200 M
CH E E CSH CC
100 E E E E E E E
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(b)
Figure
Figure 10.10.
XRDXRD and
and SEM
SEM (a)(a)CC
CC(b)
(b)FACC
FACCon
onthe
theFirst
FirstDay
Day of
of Testing.
Testing.
 Buildings
Buildings 2022,
2022, 12,12, 1679
1679 1416ofof
2122

400
CC - 7th Day
M - Mullite
E - Ettringite M CSH CSH
CC - Calcite
CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate
300
M
CSH
M
Iobs [cts]

Long and Needle Like

Ettringite

200 M
CSH
CSH
Voids
CSH

100 CSH
E
E
E CSH E E CSH
E CC E E

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(a)
400
FACC - 7th Day
M - Mullite
M
Pores
E - Ettringite Needle Like Ettringite
CH - Portlandite
300 CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate
CSH
Iobs [cts]

200 CSH
CSH

M
CSH M
100 M CSH
E
E
M E E E CSH E
CH CSH
E E

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(b)
Figure
Figure 11.11.
XRDXRD and
and SEM
SEM (a)(a)
CCCC
(b)(b) FACC
FACC onon
thethe Seventh
Seventh DayDay
of of Testing.
Testing.

Using X-pert High Score Pus software, the XRD analysis at angles of 0–90-degrees
was carried out, which can be seen in Figures 10–13 for both CC and FACC at the 1st,
7th, 14th, and 28th day of testing. The samples confirm the presence of different hydrated
phases, such as Calcium Silicate Hydrate (CSH), Calcium Aluminium Silicate Hydrate
(CASH), Ettringites, Mullite (M), Calcium Hydrate (CH) and traces of Calcite (CC). The
peak intensity of different phases was predominant in CC as compared to the FACC
mixes. The main crystalline peaks observed are CSH phase, with slightly weaker peaks of
ettringites. This confirms that the systematic hydration of the cement paste was carried out.
When compared to CC, the peak intensity value did not substantially vary from the FACC
mix (the peak intensity varied in the range of 200–400 counts). With the development of
the curing period, the hydration phase could be observed in both FACC and CC, which
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 15 of 21

Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 17 of 22

confirms the strength development. Therefore, a similar pattern was observed in both CC
and FACC.
400
CC - 14th Day
M - Mullite
E - Ettringite
CH - Portlandite
CC - Calcite
M CSH CSH

300 CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate

CSH
CSH
Iobs [cts]

200 M Long and Needle Like

CSH Ettringite CSH

Voids
CSH
M
100 M M
CSH M CC CSH
E CC CH
E CH E E

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 12.12.
XRDXRD and
and SEM
SEM (a)(a)
CCCC
(b)(b) FACC
FACC onon
thethe Fourteenth
Fourteenth DayDay of Testing.
of Testing.

In Figure 14, an indication of a thin layer of hydration product could be observed. This
thin layer over the surface of the FAC could indicated the later-ages strengthening bond
between aggregates. When compared to CC, the enhancement of the paste microstructure
of FACC is not only due to its pozzolanic reaction, but it could be the reason for the effective
filler effect of the FAC as fine aggregate. Therefore, this results in the obstruction of voids
or pores in the concrete mix. We can conclude the overall microstructural behaviour is not
affected due to the addition of FAC in the concrete, and that it is also similar to that of the
normal concrete performance. Additionally, a systematic formation of CSH networks is
formed in both CC and FACC mixes. Hence, the replacement of M Sand by FAC does not
affect the conventional cement hydration process.
Buildings 2022, 12,
Buildings 2022, 12,1679
1679 16 18 of 22
of 21

300
CC - 28th Day
M - Mullite
E - Ettringite M CSH
CSH
CC - Calcite M
CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate
CSH
200 M CSH
Iobs [cts]

CSH
CSH

Voids
CSH

100 CSH
CC CSH CSH
E CSH CSH CSH
CSH
E
E E

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th]
(a)
300
FACC - 28th Day
M - Mullite
E - Ettringite
CC - Calcite CSH CSH
CSH - Calcium Silicate Hydrate
M
200
Iobs [cts]

CSH
M
CSH CSH CSH

CH
CSH CSH

100
CC
E CSH CSH CSH
CSH CSH
CSH E E
E E E E

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Pos. [°2Th.]
(b)
Figure13.
Figure 13.XRD
XRDand
andSEM
SEM(a)(a)CC
CC(b)(b) FACC
FACC onon
thethe Twenty-Eighth
Twenty-Eighth DayDay of Testing.
of Testing.

3.8. Non-Destructive
In Figure 14, anTesting
indication of a thin layer of hydration product could be observed.
ThisAccording
thin layertoover
IS 13311 Part (1),of
the surface anthe
Ultrasonic Pulse
FAC could Velocity (UPV)
indicated test was strengthening
the later-ages performed.
The
bondtest was carried
between out in 100
aggregates. Whenmmcompared
cube size by advanced
to CC, UPV test setup.
the enhancement A thin
of the pastelayer
micro-
of grease was applied at either end of the smoothened surface of the cube to connect
structure of FACC is not only due to its pozzolanic reaction, but it could be the reason the for
transducers. The variation in the UPV reading of the thirteen concrete mix is
the effective filler effect of the FAC as fine aggregate. Therefore, this results in the shown in ob-
Table 8.
struction of voids or pores in the concrete mix. We can conclude the overall microstruc-
tural behaviour is not affected due to the addition of FAC in the concrete, and that it is
also similar to that of the normal concrete performance. Additionally, a systematic for-
mation of CSH networks is formed in both CC and FACC mixes. Hence, the replacement
of M Sand by FAC does not affect the conventional cement hydration process.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 17 of 21

Figure Macroscopic
Figure14.14. view view
Macroscopic of ITZof
view in view
ITZ FACC.in FACC.

Table 8. UPV and RN Values of CC and FACC.

3.8. Non-Destructive Testing
Compressive Strength of
Mix Velocity (km/s)
According to Grading
Concrete Quality IS 13311 Part (1), an UltrasonicCompressive
Concrete (Rebound
Pulse Velocity
Strength(UPV)
of test w
as per IS 13311-Part I, 1992 Concrete (Cube Results) MPa
formed. The test was carried outHammer)
in 100 mmMPa cube size by advanced UPV test setup
CC 4808 layer of grease was applied at either42.10
Excellent end of the smoothened 38.40surface of the cube to
FACC5 4751 Excellent 31.50 27.50
the transducers. The variation in the UPV reading of the thirteen concrete mix is s
FACC10 4672 Excellent 33.50 29.60
FACC15 4549 Table 8. Excellent 35.40 30.00
FACC20 4487 Good 36.10 31.13
FACC25 4210 Table 8. UPV and RN Values of CC and34.50
Good FACC. 32.67
FACC30 4108 Good 35.90 33.40
FACC35 4010 Good 33.60 32.90
FACC40 3987 Good 30.10
Compressive
28.47
Compres
Concrete Quality
FACC45 3828 GoodVelocity 28.40 Strength of Con-
26.50 Strength of
FACC50 3748 Mix Good Grading as per IS
26.70 24.10
FACC75 3472 Medium
(km/s) 21.80
crete (Rebound
18.10
crete (Cube R
13311-Part I, 1992
FACC100 3448 Medium 19.80 Hammer)14.10
MPa MPa
CC 4808 Excellent 42.10 38.40
As per
FACC5 the codal provision
4751 [55], the concrete
Excellent quality is defined as
31.50 doubtful when 27.50
the range is less than 3 km/s, medium when it is between 3.0–3.5 km/s, good when it is
FACC10 4672 Excellent 33.50
between 3.5–4.5 km/s, and excellent when it is greater than 4.5 km/s. UPV values of all
29.60
FACC15
the FACC mixes are in4549
the range of moreExcellent 35.40
than 3 km/s, which confirms that the mixes are 30.00
in the good quality, except
FACC20 4487for the medium mix of FACC 75 and FACC
Good 36.10 100. It is found 31.13
that an increase of FAC content decreases the UPV values, which can be attributed to the
FACC25 4210 Good 34.50 32.67
internal voids and the existence of water in the wet medium of the concrete. The rebound
FACC30
numbers 4108 mixes are presented
(RN) of the thirteen Good in the Table 8.35.90 The variation in the 33.40
FACC35
rebound 4010 to the UPV results.
number is similar Good The RN of the CC33.60is found to be 42.10, 32.90
whereas for
FACC40 the remaining
3987FACC mixes, the value
Good ranges between 19.80–36.10.
30.10 The same 28.47
trend was observed in the case of compressive strength of the CC and FACC mixes as well,
FACC45 3828 Good 28.40
where an increase of FAC content decreased the strength of the concrete.
26.50
FACC50 3748 Good 26.70 24.10
FACC75 3472 Medium 21.80 18.10
FACC100 3448 Medium 19.80 14.10

As per the codal provision [55], the concrete quality is defined as doubtful w
range is less than 3 km/s, medium when it is between 3.0–3.5 km/s, good when
tween 3.5–4.5 km/s, and excellent when it is greater than 4.5 km/s. UPV values o
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 18 of 21

4. Conclusions
A comprehensive investigation is carried out on the behaviour of fly ash cenosphere
as a fine aggregate replacement for M sand by varying its proportion from 0% to 100%.
The fresh and hardened concrete properties were evaluated by microstructural studies and
compared with CC. The following conclusions can be drawn from the current study.
The fresh and hardened density of the FACC is reduced to 34.32% when compared to
CC. The FACC achieved within the range of 1609–2430 kg/m3 . The workability of concrete
decreased with increase of FAC content. Due to its spherical shape and porosity, the nature
water absorption capacity increased due to the creation of large capillary voids. Therefore,
it is necessary to use a water-reducing agent to improve workability after adding FAC, so
that it can compensate for the reduction of the workability of the concrete.
The use of FAC in concrete reduced the compressive strength when compared to CC.
The decrease of strength is due to its hollow nature, which makes it prone to vulnerable
cracking. However, FACC achieved a compressive strength of more than 25 N/mm2 and
the target strength of 31.2 N/mm2 , as per IS 10262:2019, when the percentage replacement
was more than 35%. Therefore, it can be stated that the optimum FAC that can be used a
partial replacement of M sand is 35%, which is on the safer side, given the environmental
concerns regarding the use of FAC as fine aggregate for further study.
The reduction of the split tensile strength of FACC was found to be a maximum of
61.36% in FACC100 and a minimum of 0.80% in FACC5 when compared to CC. Regarding
the optimum content of FACC35, the strength reduction is found to be 17.19% after a 28-day
curing period. Similarly, the maximum reduction of the flexural strength of FACC is found
to be 47.32 N/mm2 for FACC100 and the minimum was 2.14% in FACC5 when compared
to CC. Regarding the optimum content of FACC35, the strength reduction is found to
be 25.00% after a 28-day curing period. Additionally, a similar trend was carried out in
impact strength, that is FACC showed lesser impact than CC. The decrease of strength
is due to filler effect of FAC, which leads the concrete to exhibit a brittle nature in when
the percentage replacement increases. This shows the reason for concern regarding the
mechanical properties. Further investigations may be performed by adding supplementary
cementitious materials, such as silica fume, nano silica, or fly ash, for the enhancement of
concrete properties.
The ratio of split strength-to-compression shows an equal or superior performance
when compared to CC, whereas it shows an inferior performance in the case of flexural
strength-to-compression strength. It was also concluded that the experimental values of
FACC show higher and better performance when compared to different empirical equations
of codal provisions.
The microstructural and XRD analysis results show that the hydration process is not
affected by changes in fine aggregate with varying percentages of FAC, as similar variation
is found in both CC and FACC specimens. In fact, the FACC turns out to be more compact,
more uniform, and has a denser microstructure compared to CC.
From the results of UPV through FACC specimens, it can be concluded that excellent-,
good-, and medium-quality concrete can be produced using fly ash cenosphere as fine aggre-
gate. The rebound number results were also in line with the compressive strength results.
The above mentioned discussion reveals that the possibility of substituting M Sand
with industrial by-product, such as fly ash cenosphere, offers economic advantages,
thereby demonstrating great importance in the present context of sustainability in the
construction industry.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, writing—original draft preparation,

M.K.; validation, editing and supervision, S.S.N.; data curation and supervision, A.S.; formal analysis
and supervision, P.T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 19 of 21

Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the XRD FACILITY at SRMIST set up with support from MNRE
(Project No. 31/03/2014-15/PVSE-R&D), Government of India. We acknowledge SRMIST for high
resolution scanning electron microscope (HR-SEM) facility.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Shetty, M.S. “Concrete Technology”, Theory and Practice; Chand & Company Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2005.
2. Gunasekaran, K.; Kumar, P.; Lakshmipathy, M. Study on Properties of Coconut Shell as an Aggregate for Concrete. Ind. J. Ind.
Concr. Ins. 2011, 12, 27–33.
3. Sandanayake, M.; Bouras, Y.; Haigh, R.; Vrcelj, Z. Current Sustainable Trends of Using Waste Materials in Concrete—A Decade
Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9622. [CrossRef]
4. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Cillari, G.; Ricciardi, P.; Miino, M.C.; Torretta, V.; Rada, E.C.; Abbà, A. The Production of Sustainable
Concrete with the Use of Alternative Aggregates: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7903. [CrossRef]
5. Vailati, M.; Mercuri, M.; Angiolilli, M.; Gregori, A. Natural-Fibrous Lime-Based Mortar for the Rapid Retrofitting of Heritage
Masonry Buildings. Fibers 2021, 9, 68. [CrossRef]
6. Kowsalya, M.; Sindhu Nachiar, S.; Anandh, S. A Review on Fly Ash Cenosphere as a Solid Waste in Concrete Application. Mater.
Today Proc. 2022. [CrossRef]
7. Feng, W.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, C.; Ma, L.; Li, L. Partially Fly Ash and Nano-Silica Incorporated Recycled Coarse Aggregate
Based Concrete: Constitutive Model and Enhancement Mechanism. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 17, 192–210. [CrossRef]
8. Yunchao, T.; Zheng, C.; Wanhui, F.; Yumei, N.; Cong, L.; Jieming, C. Combined Effects of Nano-Silica and Silica Fume on the
Mechanical Behavior of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2021, 10, 819–838. [CrossRef]
9. Pappu, A.; Saxena, M.; Asolekar, S.R. Solid Wastes Generation in India and Their Recycling Potential in Building Materials. Build.
Environ. 2007, 42, 2311–2320. [CrossRef]
10. Singh, M. Coal Bottom Ash. In Waste and Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete: Characterisation, Properties and
Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 3–50. ISBN 9780081021569.
11. Andrade, L.B.; Rocha, J.C.; Cheriaf, M. Influence of Coal Bottom Ash as Fine Aggregate on Fresh Properties of Concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 609–614. [CrossRef]
12. Cadersa, A.S. Use of Unprocessed Coal Bottom Ash as Partial Fine Aggregate Replacement in Concrete. Univ. Maurit. Res. J. 2014,
20, 62–84.
13. Singh, M.; Siddique, R. Strength Properties and Micro-Structural Properties of Concrete Containing Coal Bottom Ash as Partial
Replacement of Fine Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 246–256. [CrossRef]
14. Li, Y.; Li, L.; Bindiganavile, V. Constitutive Model of Uniaxial Compressive Behavior for Roller-Compacted Concrete Using Coal
Bottom Ash Entirely as Fine Aggregate. Buildings 2021, 11, 191. [CrossRef]
15. dos Anjos, M.A.G.; Sales, A.T.C.; Andrade, N. Blasted Copper Slag as Fine Aggregate in Portland Cement Concrete. J. Environ.
Manag. 2017, 196, 607–613. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Al-Jabri, K.S.; Hisada, M.; Al-Saidy, A.H.; Al-Oraimi, S.K. Performance of High Strength Concrete Made with Copper Slag as a
Fine Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2132–2140. [CrossRef]
17. Alnuaimi, A.S. Effects of Copper Slag as a Replacement for Fine Aggregate on the Behavior and Ultimate Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Slender Columns. J. Eng. Res. 2012, 9, 90–102. [CrossRef]
18. Naganur, J.; Chethan, B.A. Effect of Copper Slag as a Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate on the Properties of Cement Concrete
by Jayapal Naganur & Chethan B. A. Int. J. Res. 2014, 1, 882–893.
19. Yüksel, I.; Bilir, T.; Özkan, Ö. Durability of Concrete Incorporating Non-Ground Blast Furnace Slag and Bottom Ash as Fine
Aggregate. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2651–2659. [CrossRef]
20. Bheel, N.; Ali, M.O.A.; Liu, Y.; Tafsirojjaman, T.; Awoyera, P.; Sor, N.H.; Romero, L.M.B. Utilization of Corn Cob Ash as Fine
Aggregate and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as Cementitious Material in Concrete. Buildings 2021, 11, 422. [CrossRef]
21. Dash, M.K.; Patro, S.K. Performance Assessment of Ferrochrome Slag as Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate in Concrete. Eur.
J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 635–654. [CrossRef]
22. Harasymiuk, J.; Rudziński, A. Old Dumped Fly Ash as a Sand Replacement in Cement Composites. Buildings 2020, 10, 67.
[CrossRef]
23. Rajamane, N. Fly Ash as a Sand Replacement Material in Concrete—A Study. Indian Concr. J. 2013, 1–7.
24. Zhang, D.; Wang, Y.; Ma, M.; Guo, X.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Q. Effect of Equal Volume Replacement of Fine Aggregate with
Fly Ash on Carbonation Resistance of Concrete. Materials 2022, 15, 1550. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Siddique, R. Effect of Fine Aggregate Replacement with Class F Fly Ash on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Cem. Concr.
Res. 2003, 33, 539–547. [CrossRef]
26. Christy, F.; Tensing, D. Effect of Class-F Fly Ash as Partial Replacement with Cement and Fine Aggregate in Mortar. CSIR 2010,
17, 140–144.
27. Mannan, M.A.; Ganapathy, C. Engineering Properties of Concrete with Oil Palm Shell as Coarse Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater.
2002, 16, 29–34. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 20 of 21

28. Mannan, M.A.; Ganapathy, C. Concrete from an Agricultural Waste-Oil Palm Shell(OPS). Fuel Energy Abstr. 2004, 45, 441–448.
[CrossRef]
29. Ng, C.H.; Mannan, M.A.; Kameswara Rao, N.S.V. Structural Performance of Precast Floor Panel Using Oil Palm Shell Solid Waste.
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2016, 22, A4016002. [CrossRef]
30. Sekar, A.; Kandasamy, G. Optimization of Coconut Fiber in Coconut Shell Concrete and Its Mechanical and Bond Properties.
Materials 2018, 11, 1726. [CrossRef]
31. Sekar, A.; Kandasamy, G. Study on Durability Properties of Coconut Shell Concrete with Coconut Fiber. Buildings 2019, 9, 107.
[CrossRef]
32. Kumar, V.; Gunasekaran, K.; Professor, A. A Study on Mechanical Properties of Conventional Concrete and Coconut Shell
Concrete by Replacing Cement with Silica Fume. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 437–442.
33. Gunasekaran, K.; Kumar, P.S.; Lakshmipathy, M. Mechanical and Bond Properties of Coconut Shell Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
2011, 25, 92–98. [CrossRef]
34. Ramasubramani, R.; Gunasekaran, K. Sustainable Alternate Materials for Concrete Production from Renewable Source and Waste.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1204. [CrossRef]
35. Woszuk, A.; Bandura, L.; Franus, W. Fly Ash as Low Cost and Environmentally Friendly Filler and Its Effect on the Properties of
Mix Asphalt. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 493–502. [CrossRef]
36. Central Electricity Authority; Thermal Civil Design Division. Report on Fly Ash Generation at Coal/Lignite Based Thermal Power
Stations and Its Utilization in the Country for the Year 2020–2021; Central Electric Authority: New Delhi, India, 2021.
37. Li, G.; Deng, L.; Liu, J.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ran, J. A New Technique for Removing Unburned Carbon from Coal Fly Ash at an
Industrial Scale. Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. 2015, 35, 273–279. [CrossRef]
38. Lauf, R.J. Cenospheres in Fly Ash and Conditions Favouring Their Formation. Fuel 1981, 60, 1177–1179. [CrossRef]
39. Wrona, J.; Zukowski, W.; Bradlo, D.; Czuprynśki, P. Recovery of Cenospheres and Fine Fraction from Coal Fly Ash by a Novel
Dry Separation Method. Energies 2020, 13, 3576. [CrossRef]
40. Hirajima, T.; Petrus, H.T.B.M.; Oosako, Y.; Nonaka, M.; Sasaki, K.; Ando, T. Recovery of Cenospheres from Coal Fly Ash Using a
Dry Separation Process: Separation Estimation and Potential Application. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2010, 95, 18–24. [CrossRef]
41. Choudhary, N.; Yadav, V.K.; Malik, P.; Khan, S.H.; Inwati, G.K.; Suriyaprabha, R.; Singh, B.; Yadav, A.K.; Ravi, R.K. Recovery
of Natural Nanostructured Minerals. In Handbook of Research on Emerging Developments and Environmental Impacts of Ecological
Chemistry; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 450–470.
42. Chavez Alcala, J.F.; Morales Davila, R.; Lastra Quintero, R. Recovery of Cenospheres and Magnetite from Coal Burning Power
Plant Fly Ash. Trans. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn. 1987, 27, 531–538. [CrossRef]
43. Ranjbar, N.; Kuenzel, C. Cenospheres: A Review. Fuel 2017, 207, 1–12. [CrossRef]
44. Danish, A.; Mosaberpanah, M.A. Formation Mechanism and Applications of Cenospheres: A Review. J. Mater. Sci. 2020, 55,
4539–4557. [CrossRef]
45. Adesina, A. Sustainable Application of Cenospheres in Cementitious Materials—Overview of Performance. Dev. Built Environ.
2020, 4, 100029. [CrossRef]
46. Senthamarai Kannan, K.; Andal, L.; Shanmugasundaram, M. An Investigation on Strength Development of Cement with
Cenosphere and Silica Fume as Pozzolanic Replacement. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 2016, 9367619. [CrossRef]
47. Hanif, A.; Parthasarathy, P.; Ma, H.; Fan, T.; Li, Z. Properties Improvement of Fly Ash Cenosphere Modified Cement Pastes Using
Nano Silica. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 81, 35–48. [CrossRef]
48. Zhou, H.; Brooks, A.L. Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Lightweight Aggregates
and Fly-Ash Cenospheres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 198, 512–526. [CrossRef]
49. Patel, S.K.; Satpathy, H.P.; Nayak, A.N.; Mohanty, C.R. Utilization of Fly Ash Cenosphere for Production of Sustainable
Lightweight Concrete. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2020, 101, 179–194. [CrossRef]
50. IS 12269:2013; Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 Grade—Specification. Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi, India, 2013.
51. IS 383:2016; Coarse and Fine Aggregate for Concrete—Specification. Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi, India, 2016.
52. IS 10262:2019; Concrete Mix Proportioning. Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi, India, 2019.
53. IS 516:2018; Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi, India, 2018.
54. ACI 544.1R-96; State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI,
USA, 2001.
55. IS 13311-1:1992; Method of Non-Destructive Testing of Concret, Part 1: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. Bureau of Indian Standard:
New Delhi, India, 1992.
56. McBride, S.P.; Shukla, A.; Bose, A. Processing and Characterization of a Lightweight Concrete Using Cenospheres. J. Mater. Sci.
2002, 37, 4217–4225. [CrossRef]
57. Blanco, F.; García, P.; Mateos, P.; Ayala, J. Characteristics and Properties of Lightweight Concrete Manufactured with Cenospheres.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1715–1722. [CrossRef]
58. Basar, H.M.; Deveci Aksoy, N. The Effect of Waste Foundry Sand (WFS) as Partial Replacement of Sand on the Mechanical,
Leaching and Micro-Structural Characteristics of Ready-Mixed Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 508–515. [CrossRef]
59. Aggarwal, Y.; Siddique, R. Microstructure and Properties of Concrete Using Bottom Ash and Waste Foundry Sand as Partial
Replacement of Fine Aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 210–223. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1679 21 of 21

60. Newman, J.; Owens, P. Properties of Light Weight Concrete. In Advanced Concrete Technology, 3rd ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann:
Oxford, UK, 2003.
61. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete, 5th ed.; Person Education Limited: New Delhi, India, 2013.
62. ACI 318; Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2011.
63. IS 456:2000; Plain and Reinforced Concrete—Code of Practice (Fourth Revision). Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi,
India, 2000.
64. EHE. Spanish Code for Structural Concrete; Real Decreto 2661/1998; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 1998.
65. GB:10010; Code for Design of Concrete Structures. Chinese Standard; China Building Science Academy: Beijing, China, 2002.
66. Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1991.
67. NBR 6118; Design of Concrete Structures. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2003.
68. DG/TJ; Technical Code for Application of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Shangai Construction Standard Society (SCSS): Shangai,
China, 2008.