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

net/publication/356684398

Biochar as a Partial Cement Replacement Material for Developing Sustainable

Concrete: An Overview

Article in Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering · December 2021

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003987

CITATIONS READS
26 1,525

4 authors, including:

Kanghao Tan Tianyu Wang

26 PUBLICATIONS 673 CITATIONS

Guangxi University
6 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanghao Tan on 07 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 State-of-the-Art Review

Biochar as a Partial Cement Replacement Material for

Developing Sustainable Concrete: An Overview
Kang-Hao Tan 1; Tian-Yu Wang 2; Zu-Heng Zhou 3; and Ying-Hong Qin, M.ASCE 4

Abstract: Biochar (BC) is a porous carbon formed by pyrolysis of biomass at high temperatures under anoxic conditions. The use of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pulverized BC as a cementitious materials mixture has recently gained research momentum because this usage can lock BC in inert materials
and reduce cement consumption simultaneously. This paper presents a review on the use BC particles as an additive or cement replacement in
cementitious composites over the last few decades. It comprehensively reviews and discusses the physicochemical properties of BC, as well
as the influence of BC on the hydration kinetics, workability, physical properties, mechanical properties, and durability of mortar or concrete.
The replacement of cement with 1%–3% BC, in weight, decreases the permeability and increases the mechanism strength of cementitious
composites. The properties of the BC-cement composites is closely related to the carbonaceous particle fineness, feedstock, pyrolysis temper-
ature, and treatment method of the BC. Further research is expected to discover BC-based cementitious material for preparing a specific BC
for a specific use as cementitious mixture. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003987. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Biochar; Cementitious material properties; Alternative cement; CO2 sequestration.

Introduction
The latest International Energy Agency report showed that global
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions hit a record high of 33 billion tons
in 2019 (Saint Akadiri et al. 2020), of which cement production
was responsible for about 1.8 Gt (1 Gt = 1 × 109 t), accounting
for 5%–8% of the global anthropogenic emissions (Olajire
2013; Worrell et al. 2001; Xi et al. 2016). Excessive CO2 can
be reduced if the carbon is sequestrated and kept from entering
Earth’s atmosphere (Tsang et al. 2008; Ornstein et al. 2009;
Zeng 2008; Kheshgi 1995; Kumar et al. 2018). A new carbon-
sequestration technology is to pyrolyze biomass to biochar (BC)
and then to use pulverized BC as a cement supplementary material,
a process that reduces cement production and locks carbon in inert
cementitious materials simultaneously (Carmi et al. 2019; Eloka-
Eboka et al. 2019; Lehmann et al. 2006). BC is a fine-grained
and porous material produced by pyrolyzing biomass under anaero-
bic or oxygen-limiting conditions (Zubin 2010; Singh et al. 2010).
Pyrolysis of feedstock biomass (to produce BC) reduces other
greenhouse gas, such as CH4 and N2 O (Li et al. 2015;
Mahoutian and Shao 2016; Alhashimi and Aktas 2017). For exam-
ple, the carbon negative effect per ton of biomass raw material can
1
Research Student, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Guangxi Univ., 100 Univ. Rd., Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8922-9084. Email: haokangtan@163.com
2
Research Student, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Guangxi Univ., 100 Univ. Rd., Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China. Email:
tywang@163.com
3
Research Student, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Guangxi Univ., 100 Univ. Rd., Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China. Email:
477696504@qq.com
4
Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi
Univ., 100 Univ. Rd., Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China; Key Laboratory
of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety of Ministry of Education,
Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China (corresponding author). Email: yqin1@
mtu.edu
Note. This manuscript was published online on September 27, 2021.
Discussion period open until February 27, 2022; separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
reach about 870 kg CO2 equivalent (CO2 -e), of which 66% is re-
lated to the carbon retention effect of biomass charcoal (Roberts
et al. 2010). Roberts et al. (2010) analyzed the life cycle assessment
of BC technology applications, and found that BC has positive eco-
nomic benefits when considering the value of carbon sequestration.
Lehmann (2009) and Pratt and Moran (2010) found that BC shows
great advantages in both carbon sequestration capacity and cost
effectiveness.
Recently, BC has become a new outlet in the field of building
materials, in which BC is used as a supplementary of cement and/or
as a filler in concrete materials. Gupta and Kua (2017) discussed
and summarized the critical factors such as preparation condition
and properties of BC, which make BC suitable for carbon seques-
tration additives in cement composites. Praneeth et al. (2020) found
that a 50-mm cube concrete containing 4 (% by weight) of BC can
additionally store 0.124 kg of CO2 uptake due to carbonation. Wei
et al. (2012) confirmed that if the BC formed was saturated with
carbon dioxide before being deployed to the building materials, it is
possible to sequester an additional emissions of about 300 kg
CO2 -e per ton of dry raw material per gram of BC. Other studies
found that the fine carbonaceous particles could introduce internal
curing and a filler effect, improving mechanical and durability
properties of cementitious material via pore-blocking action and
densification. Ahmad et al. (2015) found that the use of BC pro-
duced from bamboo waste (0.08% by weight of cement) increased
the toughness and flexural strengths of cement composites by
103% and 66%, respectively. Similarly, Gupta et al. (2018c) in-
creased the 28-day compressive strength and antipermeability of
cement composites with the 1%–2% dosage of BC. Akhtar and Sar-
mah (2018) examined the mechanical properties of 168 mortar
samples with replacement of cement by up to 1.0% using wood
waste BC, and found that carbonaceous particles slightly increased
the splitting tensile and flexural strength of the concrete. These
encouraging outcomes solved twofold problems by minimizing
the energy-extensive use of hydraulic cement and providing a
strategy to the management problem of waste biomass (Zhang
et al. 2020; Makul 2019). Thus the use of BC particles as cement
admixture or cement replacement in cement composites is
environment-beneficial, sustainable, and symbiotic. While most

© ASCE 03121001-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001

 of these studies focus on using carbonaceous particles for road
construction, there is not a systematic review about the role of
BC as additive and cement replacement.
This paper’s objective is to present an exhaustive review of the
most current explorations of incorporating BC particles as admix-
ture and cement replacement in BC-cement composites. The paper
synthesized and analyzed the physical and chemical properties of
BC, the influence of carbonaceous particles on the fresh properties,
and the mechanical properties and durability of hardened mortar
and concrete. The further work of BC particles in cement concrete
is highlighted.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
General Properties of BC
BC is a substance with similar properties to charcoal, which can be
produced by pyrolysis, gasification, or pyrolysis of various biomass
raw materials (such as energy crops, forest waste, bioprocessing
waste, or biomass from other agricultural sources) (Bridgwater
2003; Mašek et al. 2013; Scheer et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2011;
Yu et al. 2017). Pulverized BC has particle sizes similar to tradi-
tional portland cement (Fig. 1). Table 1 represents some physical
and chemical properties of BC particles and ordinary portland ce-
ment (OPC). These physicochemical properties of a specific BC are
generally different, depending on the raw materials as well as the
preparation conditions. For the specific gravity, the BC particles
have far slighter specific gravity than OPC as given in Table 1. Con-
sequently, a larger volume is expected even if a tiny portion of
OPC, by mass, is replaced by BC particles. Due to the low specific
gravity of BC, BC-cement concrete is lighter than traditional ce-
ment concrete (Cuthbertson et al. 2019).
The specific surface area and size distribution of pulverized BC
particles are critical to the properties of BC-cement concrete. Pre-
vious studies (Thomas et al. 2012) have reported that smaller par-
ticle sizes and larger surface areas are beneficial to a faster cement
hydration. However, particle sizes and specific surface areas of a
specific BC vary greatly, depending on the grinding mill and du-
ration of grinding (Rukzon et al. 2009; Varadharajan et al. 2020;
Mosaberpanah and Umar 2020). In general, milling BC can signifi-
cantly reduce the BC’s particle size but increase the surface area
(Abu Bakar et al. 2011). As shown in Fig. 1, the particle grading
of pulverized BC is very wide, from 1 to 100 μm. About 50% of the
BC particles is finer than 10 μm, which is equivalent to that of
OPC. This fine particles of BC can participate in the cement
Fig. 1. Particle size distributions of ordinary portland cement and BC
particles.
© ASCE 03121001-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
hydration process or fill the gap of the hydration productions. A
typical internal pore structure of waste wood BC is further illus-
trated in Fig. 2. Honeycomb-like structure shapes can be clearly
seen on the surface of carbonaceous particles, resulting in the re-
lease of volatiles from the raw material or the inheritance of bio-
logical capillary structure. These particles have a circular pore
structure and consist of particles of various sizes (range from 10
to 50 μm), which determines the accessibility of the active sites
and mass transfer limitation. Likewise, the macropore size range
of 10–30 μm in BC was advantageous in retaining and storing
moisture (Yu et al. 2017; Atkinson et al. 2010; Ponnusamy et al.
2020).
The chemical properties of BC are also potentially relevant to
BC applications in cementitious materials. Table 1 compares the
chemical composition of four types of BC used in this study (Li
and Zhao 2003; Massazza 2003; Weber and Quicker 2018; Liu
et al. 2010), among which switchgrass BC shows significantly
higher SiO2 content compared to rice husk BC, bagasse BC, and
hardwood BC, respectively. In the case of switchgrass BC, the con-
tent of SiO2 is 43.63%, and the total amount of SiO2 , Al2 O3 , and
Fe2 O3 is approximate to 50%, which is the minimum requirement
of class F pozzolan, according to ASTM C618 (ASTM 2019). This
implies that switchgrass BC exhibits a stronger initial hydration
reaction with cement and combines to produce hydrated calcium
silicate. Additionally, rice husk BC contains a large amount of alu-
mina oxide and silica, indicating that it is capable of producing cal-
cium silicate hydrate (Jamil et al. 2016; Abood and Bin 2010;
Abdul Rahim et al. 2015). Bagasse BC and hardwood BC show
similar chemical composition with low SiO2 content of 5%–7%,
a property that may be attributed to pyrolysis fixes carbon in
the structure of BC by decomposition of cellulosic compounds
and lignin (Muthukrishnan et al. 2019), while the content of sul-
phur trioxide in all BC types is less than 4% (i.e., the maximum
allowable limit for application as pozzolanic admixture) (ASTM
2019), which may be inappropriate for the cement substitute.
Effect of BC on the Properties of Fresh Paste
Hydration Kinetics
Most mineral admixtures such as fly ash (Sakai et al. 2005;
Deschner et al. 2012), silica fume (Hidalgo Lopez et al. 2008),
and slag (Kolani et al. 2012; Kourounis et al. 2007) retard the heat
of hydration. Differently, the effect of BC on the kinetics of
Portland cement hydration is highly depend on the specific surface
area and mineral composition, which is controlled by the great vari-
ability of feedstocks and pyrolysis conditions (Shaaban et al. 2013;
Dixit et al. 2019). Figs. 3(a and b) shows the isothermal calorimetry
measurements of normalized hydration heat evolution of cement
paste composed of BCs derived from different biomass source
and preparation conditions, respectively. It is found that the calo-
rimetry heat profiles of the BC-cement system and of the OPC sys-
tem are similar in shape but different in magnitude at moist curing
conditions. The addition of 2 (% by weight) of inert carbonized
Wakefield, Algae, and Vermont particles slightly increases in the
magnitude of cement composites hydration peak. This may be
attributed to the presence of BC particles can accelerate the hydra-
tion of cement, promoting the nucleation and growth of hydration
products (Berodier and Scrivener 2014). However, the hydration
peak magnitude is decreased in the case of Hoffman BC, compared
to that of plain paste [Fig. 3(a)]. This reduction difference is the con-
sequence that the low pore volume and surface area of Hoffman BC,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 © ASCE

Table 1. Comparison of physicochemical properties of BC particles and cement

Physicochemical properties OPC BBC RHBC SBC HBC Remarks
Specific gravity (g=cm3 ) 3.05 0.2–1.1 — 1.1–1.3 0.5–0.6 The BC particles have far slighter
specific gravity than OPC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SiO2 (%) 20.44 7.84 15.77 43.62 5.67 The total amount of SiO2 , Al2 O3 ,
Al2 O3 (%) 2.84 0.43 0.03 0.49 0.60 and Fe2 O3 is approximate to 50%
Fe2 O3 (%) 4.64 1.19 0.05 0.76 2.36 in SBC, indicating it shows a
stronger initial hydration reaction
with cement and combines to
produce hydrated calcium silicate
according to ASTM C618 (ASTM
2019).
CaO (%) 67.73 6.00 0.19 3.65 22.37 —
MgO (%) 1.43 0.74 0.04 1.55 0.48 —
SO3 (%) 2.20 — 0.03 0.99 0.27 —
Na2 O and K2 O (%) 0.28 2.48 1.06 6.07 1.41 —
MnO (%) 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.15 0.83 —
P2 O5 (%) — 0.44 0.15 3.86 0.20 —
LOI (%) 1.8 78.97 — — 0.51 —
Particle size (μm) 10–40 — >1 mm — 1–1.5 mm 1. Specific surface area and size
Pore volume (m3 =g) — 0.15–0.94 0.10 3.02 2.07 distribution of BC particles is
Specific surface area (m2 =g) 1.75 202 164 132 3.82 highly depend on the raw
Pozzolan reactivity — 620 600 — — materials, preparation
conditions, and grinding time.
03121001-3

2. The smaller particle size in

concrete can make the larger
surface area react more
effectively with alkaline
environment.
3. Compared to the cement,
carbonaceous particles show
the higher specific surface area.
These particles can participate
in the cement hydration process
or fill the gap of the hydration
productions.
References Li and Zhao (2003) Weber and Quicker (2018), Foo and Hameed (2011) Sadaka et al. (2014) Kercher and Nagle (2003) —
and Massazza (2003) Liu et al. (2010), and Zeidabadi et al. (2018) and Choi et al. (2012) and Wahi et al. (2017)
Lee et al. (2013),
and Zeidabadi et al. (2018)
Note: BBC = bagasse biochar; RHBC = rice husk biochar; SBC = switchgrass biochar; and HBC = hardwood biochar.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. SEM micrograph of waste wood BC particles at large
magnification.
which reduces the efficiency of providing additional nucleation sites
for cement hydration (Gupta et al. 2020).
In addition, the hydration kinetics of cement composites is re-
lated to the presence of impurities and saccharides in the BC (Li
et al. 2004; Juenger and Jennings 2002; Kochova et al. 2017). As
shown in Fig. 3(b), it can be observed that BC prepared from sor-
ghum slightly retard in hydration kinetics (about 2 h) and decrease
in peak magnitude compared with plain paste. Pyrolyzing sorghum
at 500°C decomposes its cellulose and hemicellulose completely,
which are the source of saccharides that hinder the hydration of
cement (Gupta et al. 2020). The kinetics of BC-cement hydration
is also influenced by pretreatment of BC and curing conditions.
Gupta and Kua (2018) compared the degree of 28-day hydrations
of plain paste and cement paste that contained presoaked and dry
BC, respectively, and found that both the BC-cement paste and
plain paste at moist curing hydrates greater than those at air curing
condition. The improvement is because of the moist curing system
continually supplies moisture for cement hydration. Compared
with moist curing condition, the hydration degree of a cement paste
with presoaked under air curing condition could be significantly
improved for the water retained in the BC. Air cured presoaked
BC300 and presoaked BC500 samples show 9% and 11% greater
hydration degree than air cured control paste, respectively. It is
speculated that the water released from presoaked BC’s pores
can continue hydration even when the external conditions are dry.
(a)
Fig. 3. Effects of different BC types on hydration heat evolution of cement paste: (a) feedstock types; and (b) pyrolysis temperature. (Data from Gupta
et al. 2020.)
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
This continual of hydration indicates that internal curing by pre-
soaked BC can reduce the adverse effect of external drying on
cement hydration.
Although the effect of BC on cement hydration has been con-
firmed in experiments, the quantitative effect of BC on hydration
kinetics of cement remains unclear. Particularly for the preparation
of modern high-performance concrete, it is often necessary to add
fly ash, silica powder, two or even more admixtures to improve the
hydration heat of cement hydration, and thus a more quantitative
understanding of the effect of BC mixed with other admixtures on
cement hydration is needed.
Fluidity and Setting Time
The large specific surface area of BC particles makes it capable of
absorbing free water in the mix, improving the water retention of
fresh paste and increasing the water demand of the mix. Experi-
mental studies by Gupta et al. (2018c) and Tan et al. (2020) have
shown that the average fluidity of BC-mortar mixtures reduced by
10%–30%, depending on the type of BC and the amount of cement
replaced. Choi et al. (2012) attributed the increased BC dosage sig-
nificantly reduced fluidity because the water inside the slurry was
absorbed by the porous structure of carbonaceous particles. The
carbonaceous particles structure also exhibited high cations ex-
change capacity via binding to other cations in the cement paste
(Liang et al. 2006). If finer and higher dosages of BC are to be
used, the addition amount of superplasticizer should be improved.
Reports in Gupta et al. (2018a) revealed that the superplasticizer
contents had to increase greater than 2% for mixed wood saw dust
BC with a particle size of 15.6 μm and a specific surface of
196.2 m2 =g. Supplying moisture to the internal supplement of pre-
soaked BC is a viable option to minimize the extract of water from
the mix. It is thus necessary to understand the fluidity of the mix
that contains saturated BC particles as an alternative cementitious
material.
How BC types, mixing amount, and the mixing process of a
BC-based cementitious mix affect the setting time remains unclear.
Previous studies (Tan et al. 2020) found that BC particles would
shorten the setting time of fresh paste, and as the BC content in-
creased, the acceleration effect decreased to varying degrees. The in-
itial and final setting times of cement mortars containing 1%–10%
BC decrease with the increase of the replacement level. Shortening
of setting time is the result of filler effect and reduction of free water
by carbonaceous particles. Similarly, Gupta et al. (2018a) found that
the incorporation of saw dust BC significantly shortened the initial
(b)
03121001-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 setting time of cement mortar, but had little effect on the final setting
time. An addition of 2% mixed wood saw dust BC-mortar was
reduced the initial and final setting time by nearly 80 and 40 min,
respectively. Another explanation is that fine BC particles act as
“seeds” for cement hydration, producing an earlier generation of ce-
ment hydration products (Lawrence et al. 2003; Restuccia et al. 2017).
In summary, replacing a small quantity of cement by pulverized
BC in mortar or concrete mixtures increases water demand for a
given consistency (Choi et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2018b, c;
Gupta and Kua 2019; Gupta et al. 2018a). More water-reducing
agents are required to counteract the high water absorption of
BC to meet the flowability requirements of fresh paste. At the same
time, it is difficult to generalize the suitability of superplasticizer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that is suitable for all BC types, because the Si-O chemical bond
in different BC types affects the compatibility of cement concrete.
The high-performance superplasticizer is expected to realize the
efficient and large-scale application of BC in cement concrete.
Fresh Density and Air Content
BC addition reduces the fresh density of mortars but increases their
air content. Because the specific gravity of BC is lower than that of
common mineral admixtures and as BC has pores that hold air or
water inside, the fresh density of a mortar decreases with the in-
crease of BC dosages [Fig. 4(a)]. While the decreasing rate is differ-
ent for different BC types, the trend is similar, that is, increasing the
dosage of the BC from 0% to 5% can decrease the density of the
mortar by 100 kg=m3. Correspondingly, the addition of BC dos-
ages increases the air content of mortars [Fig. 4(b)], with the in-
creasing rate depending on the type of BC. The air content in the
mortar containing food waste BC is respectively higher than that
containing either wood saw dust BC or rice waste BC, especially
when the BC content is greater than 5%. The difference is due to the
low adsorption capacity of food waste BC, resulting in more free
water volumes being added to the fresh cement paste (Gupta et al.
2018a).
Effect of BC on the Properties of Hardened Paste
Thermal, Acoustic, and Electrical Properties
of BC-Cement Composites
BC has low thermal conductivity and highly-porous structure that
are helpful of improving the thermal properties of concrete
(a)
Fig. 4. Effects of fresh cement paste containing different proportions of BC: (a) fresh density; and (b) air content. (Data from Gupta et al. 2018a.)
© ASCE 03121001-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
incorporating BC. Recent reports (Cuthbertson et al. 2019; Lee
et al. 2019) utilized BC as a filler for improving the thermal resis-
tance of the concrete material. It was found that when the BC dos-
age was 2%, the BC-concrete had the lowest thermal conductivity,
which was about 0.19 W=ðm · KÞ and was far lower than traditional
portland cement concrete [0.62 ∼ 3.3 W=ðm · KÞ]. The decrease of
thermal conductivity would inevitably help to improving thermal in-
sulation, and limit the thermal bridging effects in building materials
(Berardi and Naldi 2017; Khoukhi 2018). This improvement is im-
portant to reduce energy consumption for building heating or cool-
ing. In addition, the incorporation of BC also increases the sound
absorption coefficient of concrete across a range of 200–2,000 Hz,
because it creates pore networks with the concrete (Cuthbertson et al.
2019). Modified BCs have also been found to have good electrical
conductivity and thus can be used as an electromagnetic shielding
material for making military communication base station facilities
(Khushnood et al. 2016).
BC is regarded as a new kind of renewable and ecofriendly func-
tional material in the future, contributing to the good anatomical
structure and physicochemical properties, while coupled with its
accessibility, low cost, and carbon negative. To promote the recy-
cling of biomass waste, we look forward to a shift in the develop-
ment of the next generation of BC produced with specific and
controlled properties for particular uses.
Mechanical Properties
The compressive strength of cement mortar/concrete mixed with
BC is affected by water-cement ratio (w=c), BC dosages, types, and
curing conditions. There is consensus that optimizing the dosage of
BC in the admixture enhances the mechanical properties. Gupta
et al. (2018a) investigated the effect of various cement replacement
levels, with mixed wood saw dust BC (1%, 2%, and 5%) on the
mechanical strength of mortar, and found that the optimal amount
of mixed wood saw dust BC as partial cement replacement is 1%.
When the mixed wood saw dust BC dosages up to by 5%, the 28-day
strength decreased by 10%–15%, compared to the sample with the
optimum amount (Table 2). In addition to the dosage, the feedstock
of BC also influences the compressive strength of BC-cement com-
posites. It is found that a mortar with mixed wood saw dust BC ex-
hibited better compressive strength than that of mortar with food
waste BC and rice waste BC (Gupta et al. 2018a). This difference
was attributed to that mixed wood saw dust BC had a greatly higher
pore structure and surface areas.
(b)
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 2. Effect of BC dosages on the compressive strength of mortars
28-day
compressive
Compressive strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
BC % by % by Moist Air
types weight w=c 7 days 28 days 56 days References BC types weight w=c curing curing References
CK 0 0.40 34.76 48.82 — Gupta et al. CK 0 0.50 64.86 53.34 Gupta and
FWBC 1 0.40 40.04 58.08 — (2018a) MWBC (size range 0.25 0.50 61.78 58.36 Kua (2019)
2 0.40 38.16 54.09 — of 0.1–2 μm) 0.50 0.50 69.66 69.61
5 0.40 — — — 1.0 0.50 70.54 66.04
RWBC 5 0.40 35.02 49.25 — 2.0 0.50 70.59 65.76
1 0.40 36.03 53.56 — MWBC (size range 0.25 0.50 67.87 60.87
5 0.40 31.96 41.10 — of 2–100 μm) 0.50 0.50 68.00 63.45
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

MWBC 1 0.40 — — — 1.0 0.50 70.30 62.45

2 0.40 35.21 45.40 — 2.0 0.50 69.40 56.43
5 0.40 32.07 43.01 — CK 0 0.40 58.62 42.16 Gupta and
HBC 0 0.50 — 43.7 56.3 Choi et al. Dry BC300 2.0 0.40 59.68 47.59 Kua (2018)
5 0.50 — 46.5 60.5 (2012) Dry BC500 2.0 0.40 63.90 49.24
10 0.50 — 41.3 52.3 Presoak BC300 2.0 0.25 69.84 60.94
15 0.50 — 34.6 48.9 Presoak BC500 2.0 0.22 71.82 63.85
20 0.40 — 25.9 28.4 CK 0 0.40 — 72.05 Sirico et al.
CK 0 0.50 46.32 58.43 — Gupta et al. MWBC (produced 1.0 0.40 — 69.12 (2020)
BC300 1 0.50 56.85 59.68 — (2018c) by gasification) 2.5 0.40 — 62.08
BC500 1 0.50 61.27 63.87 — — — — — — —
Note: FWBC = food waste biochar; RWBC = rice waste biochar; MWBC = mixed wood saw dust biochar; HBC = hardwood biochar; and BCXXX = biochar
prepared at a pyrolysis of XXX °C.

Early strength gain (within the first 3–7 days) generally in-
creases with the growth of BC. Gupta et al. (2018c) found that the
maximum strength improvement of BC-mortar achieved at 7 days
was 35%, whereas it was only 16% at the 28-day age. BC affects
the early strength gain probably due to the fact that the carbonized
particles in the mortar absorb the water originally prepared for ce-
ment hydration at the early stage of mixing and inhibit the secon-
dary hydration. One idea to increase strength growth rate is to
choose suitable mixing. For strongly absorbent material, BC used
for the mortar mix should be submerged in water for complete sat-
uration before mixing, thus preventing them from absorbing part of
the mixed water in the early stage of mortar hardening (Gupta and
Kua 2018). Table 2 lists the existing experimental studies about the
effect of BC from different feedstock on the compressive strength
of cement mortar.
Compared with compressive strength, the addition of BC does
not dramatically influence the flexural strength improvements. The
flexural strength of a hardened concrete peaks at the same cement
replacement level (1%), a trend that is similar to the compressive
strength. The tests on flexural strength of BC-cement composites
were reported by Tan et al. (2020), Gupta et al. (2018a, c), Gupta
nad Kua (2018), and Restuccia et al. (2017). They suggested that
1%–3% addition of BC was propitious to improve the flexural
strength of cement composites. Figs. 5(a and b) show the 7- and
28-day flexural strength of BC-contained mortars with different
feedstock types and pyrolysis temperature, respectively (Gupta
et al. 2018a; Tan et al. 2020). It is found that the average flexural
strength of mortars with 1% addition of mixed wood BC is signifi-
cantly higher, while the addition of food waste BC and rice waste
BC affects the flexural strength negligibly. Similar observations are
reflected in the case of pyrolysis temperature. The 28-day flexural
strength of cement mortars containing BC particles pyrolyzed at
600°C and 700°C is higher than that of produced from 400°C to
500°C [Fig. 5(b)]. One possible reason is that carbonaceous particles
pyrolyzed at higher temperature are more irregular than ones at lower
pyrolysis temperatures (Azargohar et al. 2014; Fu et al. 2012); these

Fig. 5. Characteristics difference of BC shows a noticeable effect on flexural strength: (a) feedstock types; and (b) pyrolysis temperature. BCXXX =
biochar prepared at a pyrolysis of XXX °C.

© ASCE 03121001-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Typical load-deformation (CMOD) curves for cement compo-
sites with and without carbonaceous particle inclusions. (Data from
Ahmad et al. 2015; Khushnood et al. 2016.)
particles exhibit more surface area of interaction with the surround-
ing cement paste to restrict crack propagation (Restuccia et al. 2017).
The load-deformation (F-δ) curves of mortar paste containing
two types of carbonized particles are compared in Fig. 6 (Ahmad
et al. 2015; Khushnood et al. 2016). The addition of 0.8% of hazel-
nut shell BC increases fracture energy by about 60%, compared
with plain cement paste. This increment may be related to the crack
deflection mechanism introduced by carbonized particles in cement
paste (Restuccia and Ferro 2016a; Restuccia et al. 2017; Restuccia
and Ferro 2016b). Furthermore, the pretreatment of BC also signifi-
cantly affects the energy absorption capability of cement composites
such as mortar and concrete. Ahmad et al. (2015) found that the spec-
imens containing untreated carbon bamboo particles showed an in-
crease in total toughness value with a maximum increment of 23%,
with an optimum addition of 0.08%. In the case of chemical treat-
ment, the increment was 31% even for a smaller addition of carbon-
ized material. As the ductility of a concrete increases with its
strength, these BC particles can modify the typical brittle behavior
of the cement paste by giving a ductile behavior to the cement-based
composites, which become new ways for improving mechanical
properties to enhanced functionalities in the future.
Existing studies have reported that the BC addition alter the
elastic modulus of mortar very limited. This may be attributed to
the lower elastic modulus of added BC particles than mortar paste.
Gupta et al. (2018c) found that the addition of 1% of BC pyrolyzed
at 300°C and 500°C slightly increased elastic modulus by about 3%
and 5%, respectively, compared to plain cement paste. However,
further increasing the BC dosage decreases the elastic modulus
due to the higher volume occupied by the low modulus BC. Fur-
thermore, Gupta et al. (2018a) further found that the elastic modu-
lus of mortar containing BC increased linearly with the percentage
of carbon content, that is, the elastic modulus of BC had a positive
effect on the static elastic modulus of mortar.
Water-Tightness Properties
The water-tightness is a parameter that is used to evaluate the
intrusion and corrosion ability of cement-based composites to resist
external ingressive ions such as Cl− , SO2−4 . In general, a hardened
paste with low permeability or poor water absorption is conducive to
improve the durability of the structure (Gupta and Kua 2020). The
use of BC, especially in fine particles, reduces sorptivity and water
penetration in mortar or concrete by improving the inhomogeneity
in the microstructure of hydrated cement mortar, especially the pres-
ence of macropores and large crystallization products in the
© ASCE 03121001-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
Fig. 7. Comparison of the water penetration depth of mortars in moist-
and air-curing. (Data from Gupta and Kua 2018.)
transition zone. Tan et al. (2020) found that replacing 1% cement
effectively restricted the water absorption of mortar, and that the
mortars with BC produced from lower pyrolysis temperature had
stronger the capillary water absorption. Analogously, Gupta et al.
(2018a) used the infiltration height method to determine the imper-
meability of mortar containing different BC types. The experimental
results showed that the antiseepage effect on mortar depends on the
BC’s feedstock, with the best effect for mixed wood saw dust, fol-
lowed by food waster, and other feedstock. Gupta and Kua (2018)
further tested the impermeability of concrete under the condition of
moist curing and air curing, and found that with time elapse, the
impermeability of samples cured by moist curing was much higher
than that by the air curing mortar (Fig. 7). They argued that the water
released by BC particles promotes secondary hydration, producing a
new hydration product to fill the pore cracks in the mortar. Similar
results are reported by Canedamartinez et al. (2019), who found that
although a BC replacement of 20% cement increased the total pore
volume by 10%, the pores in BC-cement hardeners consisted most of
cementitious pores and the capillary pores larger than 10 μm were
much lower than those in the blank control group. The pore charac-
teristics indicate that BC particles act as a hygroscopic filler that im-
proves the water absorption and retention capability of pervious
concrete production.
Dry Shrinkage
One of the main causes of concrete cracking is shrinkage due to the
evaporation of water adsorbed in capillary pores (Paris et al. 2016).
The shrinkage of cement-based composites is related to water con-
sumption, increasing with the water content in mixtures and the
cement paste-to-aggregate ratio of the paste.
Previous studies have reported that mixtures with auxiliary ce-
mentitious material exhibited greater drying shrinkage than the
OPC (Bendapudi and Saha 2011; Hemalatha and Ramaswamy
2017; Paris et al. 2016). In particular, mixtures containing BC par-
ticles have a finer pore structure than OPC mixtures. For this rea-
son, smaller capillary voids are present in these mixtures and cause
greater drying shrinkage because of the removal of water from
these voids. Gupta et al. (2018c) examined the influence of BC par-
ticles on the drying shrinkage of cement mortar with varying dos-
ages of BC as a partial replacement of cement, and found that the
maximum shrinkage rate appeared at the first four days and were
unchanged after 56 days (Fig. 8), and that the addition of 1% BC
pyrolyzed at 300°C and 500°C increased the shrinkage 26% and
12%, respectively. This difference in drying shrinkage is because
pore structure and hydrophilic properties of BC produced at differ-
ent pyrolysis condition is different. Further studies are needed to
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Drying shrinkage of mortars containing different BC dosage.
(Data from Gupta et al. 2018c.)
understand the effect of various levels of different types of BC on
the shrinkage properties of mortar.
Mechanism Related to the Strength Improvement of
BC-Cement Composites
Microaggregate Effect
BC particles are inert chemically and play a positive role in mortar
and concrete based on its microaggregate effect. The fineness of
BC particles is one of the major factors that control the properties
of BC-based cementitious materials. When a certain amount of BCs
are mixed into the concrete, these particles are filled between the
aggregate voids and the fine aggregates to make the cement colloid
dense. At the same time, the secondary hydration of BC produces
new substances that block the capillary channel, reducing macro-
pores and making cement colloids denser. Zeidabadi et al. (2018)
found that a small quantity of rice husk BC in cement composites
led to approximately 12% increment in compressive strength com-
pared to the control sample. Cuthbertson et al. (2019) prepared the
BC by pyrolysis of agricultural waste at a high temperature and
used it as a filler to make standard concrete samples, finding that
the addition of BC improves the tensile strength and compressive
strength. When BC acts as a filler, the compressive strength of con-
crete samples with fine BC is greater than that of samples with
coarse ones (Gupta and Kua 2019). Similar results have been re-
ported that ultrafine carbon particles accelerated in the process of
concrete hydration, and provided nucleation sites to produce more
hydration products at the early stage of hydration (Berodier and
Scrivener 2014).
Pozzolana Effect
Whether a BC can be used as a pozzolan material depends on the
silica level of the BC. The reactivity of the pozzolan can be tested
by the Chapelle test, which is performed by reacting calcium
hydroxide with diluted pozzolanic slurry at 95°C (203°F) for 18 h.
According to the definition by ASTM C618 (ASTM 2019), when
pozzolan is in an ultrafine ground state, that silica can bind to the
hydration product CaðOHÞ2 to form a stable calcium silicate with
cementitious properties. Generally, the total silica contents in ligno-
celluloses based BC are greater than manure-based one (Akinyemi
and Adesina 2020), indicating BC pyrolyzed from agricultural
waste is more appropriate for the pozzolanicity of material.
© ASCE 03121001-8
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
Fig. 9. Pozzolanic reactivity of different BCs. RHB = rice husk
biochar; BB = bagasse biochar; TRHB = pretreated rice husk biochar;
and TBB = pretreated bagasse biochar. (Data from Zeidabadi et al.
2018.)
Fig. 9 compares the effects of pretreatment and agricultural waste
type on pozzolanic reactivity (Zeidabadi et al. 2018). This reveals that
rice husk BC particles could be used as supplementary cementitious
materials in the cement-based composites due to its high content of
silica. The pretreatment improved fixed/consumed calcium hydroxide
compared to the unpretreated samples. The pozzolanic activity of
treated and unpretreated rice husk BC is higher than the treated
and unpretreated bagasse BC. The reason is that pretreated rice husk
BC has the higher amorphous silica phase of unpretreated rice husk
one. For instance, the concrete samples containing 5% of pretreated
rice husk BC with a compressive strength of about 42 MPa (28 days),
which is 13% and 36% greater than the unpretreated rice husk BC and
the control mortar, respectively (Zeidabadi et al. 2018). An increment
of concrete strength due to the addition of BC may be related to a
pozzolanic reaction at later stages.
Future Research
Although it has been demonstrated that BC can be used as a
potential replacement for improving BC-based cementitious materi-
als, more research is needed before this material can be accepted by
the industry. To date, there has been sparse information to examine
the long-term durability properties of concrete containing these
carbonaceous particles. Although the short-term (<180 days) perfor-
mance, such as basic mechanical properties, is known, the long-term
performance of concrete exposed to high salinity, high alkalinity,
freeze-thaw conditions, high temperature, high sulfates, and/or other
harsh environments remains unknown. More notably, BC adsorbed
and captured CO2 can be permanently locked carbon in building
concrete structures through carbonate mineralization. If later car-
bonization causes corrosion problems of corroded reinforced con-
crete, the durability of concrete structures can be undermined (Gupta
and Kua 2017). In addition, it also remains unknown whether the
hydration matrix of BC-contained cement materials helps immobi-
lize heavy metals and other hazardous elements in the hydration ma-
trix. Therefore, future research should be wrestled with this problem.
The properties of admixtures are important because the proper-
ties of commercial concrete are often affected by the number of
chemical admixtures. However, interactions and effects of chemical
admixtures with concrete added to alternative BC remains also un-
known. The mechanical properties of concrete should be expanded
to fully evaluate the admixture interaction mechanism of BC
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 modified concrete. As noted by Gupta et al. (2018b), locking up BC
in cementitious materials via carbon sequestration technology is
able to simultaneously produce multiple environmental benefits,
such as the utilization of waste resources and inhibition of green-
house gas emissions. Life cycle assessment of biomass materials
needs to be addressed systematically.
Conclusion
The use of pyrolysis waste biomass as alternatives to cement, or as
supplementary cementitious material, has potential benefits for the
cement industry and the environment. This paper presents a review
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
on the incorporation of BC as a substitute for cement in concrete in
the last decades. The aspects of BC including its physical, chemi-
cal, and elemental characteristics as well as the influence of BC on
properties of fresh and hardened paste have been discussed. The
following generalized conclusions can be drawn on the properties
of BC-cement composites:
1. The physical and chemical properties of BC vary with its feed-
stock and preparation conditions. The carbonization method, the
feedstock, and the pretreatment has to be refined for producing a
specific BC for a specific use;
2. The presence of BC particles in fresh paste can accelerate the
cement hydration due to additional surface area for nucleation
site and growth of hydration products. Incorporation of pulver-
ized BC as a partial replacement of cement adversely decreases
the flowability of fresh paste compare to OPC. The bulk density
of fresh paste was gradually reduced with the dosages of BC.
The reduction is attributed to abundant pore characteristics of
BC that hold air or water inside;
3. The BC has a good anatomical structure and physicochemical
properties (e.g., good electrical conductivity, the low thermal
conductivity, and the porous nature), and these characteristics
are in turn change the thermal insulation, shield electromagnetic
ability, and acoustic property of concrete materials;
4. BC can increase the early strength of concrete, but the later
strength increases slowly. The negative effects of BC on the later
strength of BC-based concrete can be overcomed by reducing
the dosage, using the presoaking treatment and the wet curing.
The replacement of cement by BC improves the compressive,
the flexural strengths of BC-cement composites, and the duc-
tility and fracture toughness; and
5. The replacement of cement with a modest content (1%–3% in
weight) of BC replacement dramatically decreases the per-
meability of concrete greatly. Further increase of the BC con-
tents enhances water absorption due to the hydrophilicity of
BC particles. There was a significant increase in the early drying
shrinkage on the incorporation of BC.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This work is jointly supported by the high-level innovation team
and outstanding scholar program in Guangxi colleges (granted to
Dr. Yinghong Qin), the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Nos. 41561015 and 51678164), and Innovation Project of
Guangxi Graduate Education (YCBZ2021022).
© ASCE 03121001-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
References
Abdul Rahim, M., N. M. Ibrahim, Z. Idris, Z. M. Ghazaly, S. Shahidan,
N. L. Rahim, L. A. Sofri, and N. F. Isa. 2015. “Properties of concrete
with different percentange of the rice husk ash (RHA) as partial cement
replacement.” Mater. Sci. Forum 803 (Jan): 288–293. https://doi.org/10
.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.803.288.
Abood, H. G., and M. H. Bin. 2010. “Study on properties of rice husk
ash and its use as cement replacement material.” Mater. Res. 13 (2):
185–190. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392010000200011.
Abu Bakar, B. H., P. J. Ramadhansyah, and M. J. Megat Azmi. 2011.
“Effect of rice husk ash fineness on the chemical and physical properties
of concrete.” Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (5): 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1680
/macr.10.00019.
Ahmad, S., R. A. Khushnood, P. Jagdale, J. M. Tulliani, and G. A. Ferro.
2015. “High performance self-consolidating cementitious composites
by using micro carbonized bamboo particles.” Mater. Des. 76 (Jul):
223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.03.048.
Akhtar, A., and A. K. Sarmah. 2018. “Novel biochar-concrete composites:
Manufacturing, characterization and evaluation of the mechanical prop-
erties.” Sci. Total Environ. 616-617 (Mar): 408–416. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.319.
Akinyemi, B. A., and A. Adesina. 2020. “Recent advancements in the
use of biochar for cementitious applications: A review.” J. Build. Eng.
32 (Nov): 101705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101705.
Alhashimi, H. A., and C. B. Aktas. 2017. “Life cycle environmental and
economic performance of biochar compared with activated carbon: A
meta-analysis.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 118 (Mar): 13–26. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.016.
ASTM. 2019. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or
calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM C618. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Atkinson, C. J., J. D. Fitzgerald, and N. A. Hipps. 2010. “Potential mech-
anisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to
temperate soils: A review.” Plant Soil 337 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s11104-010-0464-5.
Azargohar, R., S. Nanda, J. A. Kozinski, A. K. Dalai, and R. Sutarto.
2014. “Effects of temperature on the physicochemical characteristics
of fast pyrolysis bio-chars derived from Canadian waste biomass.” Fuel
125 (Jun): 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.083.
Bendapudi, S., and P. Saha. 2011. “Contribution of fly ash to the properties
of mortar and concrete.” Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 4 (6): 1017–1023.
Berardi, U., and M. Naldi. 2017. “The impact of the temperature dependent
thermal conductivity of insulating materials on the effective building
envelope performance.” Energy Build. 144 (Jun): 262–275. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.052.
Berodier, E., and K. Scrivener. 2014. “Understanding the filler effect on
the nucleation and growth of C-S-H.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 97 (12):
3764–3773. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.13177.
Bridgwater, A. V. 2003. “Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal
processing of biomass.” Chem. Eng. J. 91 (2): 87–102. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S1385-8947(02)00142-0.
Canedamartinez, L., C. Medina, M. I. S. de Rojas, and M. Frías. 2019.
“Water transport in binary eco-cements containing coal mining waste.”
Cem. Concr. Compos. 104 (Nov): 103373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconcomp.2019.103373.
Carmi, I., J. Kronfeld, and M. Moinester. 2019. “Sequestration of atmos-
pheric carbon dioxide as inorganic carbon in the unsaturated zone under
semi-arid forests.” Catena 173 (Feb): 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.catena.2018.09.042.
Choi, W. C., H. D. Yun, and J. Y. Lee. 2012. “Mechanical properties of mor-
tar containing bio-char from pyrolysis.” J. Korea Inst. Struct. Maint.
Inspection 16 (3): 67–74. https://doi.org/10.11112/jksmi.2012.16.3.067.
Cuthbertson, D., U. Berardi, C. Briens, and F. Berruti. 2019. “Biochar from
residual biomass as a concrete filler for improved thermal and acoustic
properties.” Biomass Bioenergy 120 (Jan): 77–83. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.007.
Deschner, F., F. Winnefeld, B. Lothenbach, S. Seufert, P. Schwesig, S.
Dittrich, F. Goetz-Neunhoeffer, and J. Neubauer. 2012. “Hydration of
Portland cement with high replacement by siliceous fly ash.” Cem.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Concr. Res. 42 (10): 1389–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres
.2012.06.009.
Dixit, A., S. Gupta, S. Dai Pang, and H. W. Kua. 2019. “Waste Valorisation
using biochar for cement replacement and internal curing in ultra-high
performance concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 238 (Nov): 117876. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117876.
Eloka-Eboka, A. C., J. K. Bwapwa, and S. Maroa. 2019. “Biomass for CO2
sequestration.” In Encyclopedia of renewable and sustainable materi-
als, edited by S. Hashmi, and I. A. Choudhury, 277–290. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Foo, K. Y., and B. H. Hameed. 2011. “Utilization of rice husks as a feed-
stock for preparation of activated carbon by microwave induced KOH
and K2CO3 activation.” Bioresour. Technol. 102 (20): 9814–9817.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.102.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fu, P., S. Hu, J. Xiang, L. Sun, S. Su, and J. Wang. 2012. “Evaluation of
the porous structure development of chars from pyrolysis of rice straw:
Effects of pyrolysis temperature and heating rate.” J. Anal. Appl. Pyroly-
sis 98 (Nov): 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.08.005.
Gupta, S., and H. W. Kua. 2017. “Factors determining the potential of bio-
char as a carbon capturing and sequestering construction material: Criti-
cal review.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (9): 04017086. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001924.
Gupta, S., and H. W. Kua. 2018. “Effect of water entrainment by pre-
soaked biochar particles on strength and permeability of cement mor-
tar.” Constr. Build. Mater. 159 (Jan): 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2017.10.095.
Gupta, S., and H. W. Kua. 2019. “Carbonaceous micro-filler for cement:
Effect of particle size and dosage of biochar on fresh and hardened
properties of cement mortar.” Sci. Total Environ. 662 (Apr): 952–
962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.269.
Gupta, S., and H. W. Kua. 2020. “Combination of biochar and silica fume
as partial cement replacement in mortar: Performance evaluation under
normal and elevated temperature.” Waste Biomass Valorization 11 (6):
2807–2824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-00573-x.
Gupta, S., H. W. Kua, and H. J. Koh. 2018a. “Application of biochar from
food and wood waste as green admixture for cement mortar.” Sci. Total
Environ. 619–620 (Apr): 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv
.2017.11.044.
Gupta, S., H. W. Kua, and C. Y. Low. 2018b. “Use of biochar as carbon
sequestering additive in cement mortar.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 87 (Mar):
110–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.12.009.
Gupta, S., H. W. Kua, and S. D. Pang. 2018c. “Biochar-mortar composite:
Manufacturing, evaluation of physical properties and economic viabil-
ity.” Constr. Build. Mater. 167 (Apr): 874–889. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.104.
Gupta, S., K. N. Palansooriya, P. D. Dissanayake, Y. S. Ok, and H. W.
Kua. 2020. “Carbonaceous inserts from lignocellulosic and non-
lignocellulosic sources in cement mortar: Preparation conditions
and its effect on hydration kinetics and physical properties.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 264 (Dec): 120214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2020.120214.
Hemalatha, T., and A. Ramaswamy. 2017. “A review on fly ash
characteristics—Towards promoting high volume utilization in devel-
oping sustainable concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 147 (Mar): 546–559.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.114.
Hidalgo Lopez, A., J. L. García Calvo, J. García Olmo, S. Petit, and M. C.
Alonso. 2008. “Microstructural evolution of calcium aluminate cements
hydration with silica fume and fly ash additions by scanning electron
microscopy, and mid and near-infrared spectroscopy.” J. Am. Ceram.
Soc. 91 (4): 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008
.02283.x.
Jamil, M., M. N. N. Khan, M. R. Karim, A. B. M. A. Kaish, and M. F. M.
Zain. 2016. “Physical and chemical contributions of rice husk ash on the
properties of mortar.” Constr. Build. Mater. 128 (Dec): 185–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.029.
Jones, D. L., D. V. Murphy, M. Khalid, W. Ahmad, G. Edwards-Jones, and
T. H. DeLuca. 2011. “Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil CO2
release is both biotically and abiotically mediated.” Soil Biol. Biochem.
43 (8): 1723–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.018.
© ASCE 03121001-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
Juenger, M. C. G., and H. M. Jennings. 2002. “New insights into the effects
of sugar on the hydration and microstructure of cement pastes.” Cem.
Concr. Res. 32 (3): 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(01)
00689-5.
Kercher, A. K., and D. C. Nagle. 2003. “Microstructural evolution during
charcoal carbonization by X-ray diffraction analysis.” Carbon 41 (1):
15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-6223(02)00261-0.
Kheshgi, H. S. 1995. “Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increas-
ing ocean alkalinity.” Energy 20 (9): 915–922. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0360-5442(95)00035-F.
Khoukhi, M. 2018. “The combined effect of heat and moisture transfer de-
pendent thermal conductivity of polystyrene insulation material: Impact
on building energy performance.” Energy Build. 169 (Jun): 228–235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.055.
Khushnood, R. A., S. Ahmad, L. Restuccia, C. Spoto, P. Jagdale, J. M.
Tulliani, and G. A. Ferro. 2016. “Carbonized nano/microparticles for
enhanced mechanical properties and electromagnetic interference
shielding of cementitious materials.” Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 10 (2):
209–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-016-0330-5.
Kochova, K., K. Schollbach, F. Gauvin, and H. J. H. Brouwers. 2017.
“Effect of saccharides on the hydration of ordinary Portland cement.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 150 (Sep): 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2017.05.149.
Kolani, B., L. Buffo-Lacarrière, A. Sellier, G. Escadeillas, L. Boutillon, and
L. Linger. 2012. “Hydration of slag-blended cements.” Cem. Concr.
Compos. 34 (9): 1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp
.2012.05.007.
Kourounis, S., S. Sundaram, E. Gnansounou, C. Larroche, and I. S. Thakur.
2007. “Properties and hydration of blended cements with steelmaking
slag.” Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (6): 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.cemconres.2007.03.008.
Kumar, M., S. Sundaram, E. Gnansounou, C. Larroche, and I. S. Thakur.
2018. “Carbon dioxide capture, storage and production of biofuel and
biomaterials by bacteria: A review.” Bioresour. Technol. 247 (Jan):
1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.050.
Lawrence, P., M. Cyr, and E. Ringot. 2003. “Mineral admixtures in mortars:
Effect of inert materials on short-term hydration.” Cem. Concr. Res.
33 (12): 1939–1947. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00183-2.
Lee, H., S. Yang, S. Wi, and S. Kim. 2019. “Thermal transfer behavior of
biochar-natural inorganic clay composite for building envelope insula-
tion.” Constr. Build. Mater. 223 (Oct): 668–678. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.215.
Lee, Y., J. Park, C. Ryu, K. S. Gang, W. Yang, Y. K. Park, J. Jung, and S.
Hyun. 2013. “Comparison of biochar properties from biomass residues
produced by slow pyrolysis at 500°C.” Bioresour. Technol. 148 (Nov):
196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.135.
Lehmann, J. 2009. “Biological carbon sequestration must and can be a win-
win approach.” Clim. Change 97 (3–4): 459–463. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10584-009-9695-y.
Lehmann, J., J. Gaunt, and M. Rondon. 2006. “Bio-char sequestration in
terrestrial ecosystems—A review.” Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global
Change 11 (2): 403–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5.
Li, B., C. H. Fan, H. Zhang, Z. Z. Chen, L. Y. Sun, and Z. Q. Xiong. 2015.
“Combined effects of nitrogen fertilization and biochar on the net global
warming potential, greenhouse gas intensity and net ecosystem eco-
nomic budget in intensive vegetable agriculture in southeastern China.”
Atmos. Environ. 100 (Jan): 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv
.2014.10.034.
Li, G., Y. Yu, J. Li, C. Li, and Y. Wang. 2004. “Research on adaptability
between crop-stalk fibers and cement.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (7): 1081–
1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.11.026.
Li, G., and X. Zhao. 2003. “Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and
ground granulated blast-furnace slag.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (3):
293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00058-6.
Liang, B., et al. 2006. “Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in
soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70 (5): 1719–1730. https://doi.org/10.2136
/sssaj2005.0383.
Liu, Z., F. S. Zhang, and J. Wu. 2010. “Characterization and application of
chars produced from pinewood pyrolysis and hydrothermal treatment.”
Fuel 89 (2): 510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.08.042.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Mahoutian, M., and Y. Shao. 2016. “Production of cement-free construc-
tion blocks from industry wastes.” J. Cleaner Prod. 137 (Nov): 1339–
1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.012.
Makul, N. 2019. “Combined use of untreated-waste rice husk ash and foundry
sand waste in high-performance self-consolidating concrete.” Results
Mater. 1 (Aug): 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinma.2019.100014.
Mašek, O., P. Brownsort, A. Cross, and S. Sohi. 2013. “Influence of pro-
duction conditions on the yield and environmental stability of biochar.”
Fuel 103 (Jan): 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.08.044.
Massazza, F. 2003. “Pozzolana and pozzolanic cements.” Chap. 10 in Vol.
5 of Leas chemistry of cement and concrete. 4th ed., 471–635. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mosaberpanah, M. A., and S. A. Umar. 2020. “Utilizing rice husk ash as
supplement to cementitious materials on performance of ultra high per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 10/10/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
formance concrete: A review.” Mater. Today Sustainability 7–8 (Mar):
100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2019.100030.
Muthukrishnan, S., S. Gupta, and H. W. Kua. 2019. “Application of rice
husk biochar and thermally treated low silica rice husk ash to improve
physical properties of cement mortar.” Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech.
104 (Dec): 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.102376.
Olajire, A. A. 2013. “A review of mineral carbonation technology in se-
questration of CO2.” J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 109 (Sep): 364–392. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.03.013.
Ornstein, L., I. Aleinov, and D. Rind. 2009. “Irrigated afforestation of the
Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming.” Clim. Change
97 (3): 409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y.
Paris, J. M., J. G. Roessler, C. C. Ferraro, H. D. DeFord, and T. G.
Townsend. 2016. “A review of waste products utilized as supplements
to Portland cement in concrete.” J. Cleaner Prod. 121 (May): 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.013.
Ponnusamy, V. K., S. Nagappan, R. R. Bhosale, C. H. Lay, D. D. Nguyen,
A. Pugazhendhi, C. S. Woong, and G. Kumar. 2020. “Review on sus-
tainable production of biochar through hydrothermal liquefaction:
Physico-chemical properties and applications.” Bioresour. Technol.
310 (Aug): 123414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123414.
Praneeth, S., R. Guo, T. Wang, B. K. Dubey, and A. K. Sarmah. 2020. “Ac-
celerated carbonation of biochar reinforced cement-fly ash composites:
Enhancing and sequestering CO2 in building materials.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 244 (May): 118363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020
.118363.
Pratt, K., and D. Moran. 2010. “Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of global
biochar mitigation potential.” Biomass Bioenergy 34 (8): 1149–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.03.004.
Restuccia, L., and G. A. Ferro. 2016a. “Nanoparticles from food waste:
A ‘green’ future for traditional building materials.” In Proc., 9th Int.
Conf. on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures.
Paris: RILEM.
Restuccia, L., and G. A. Ferro. 2016b. “Promising low cost carbon-based
materials to improve strength and toughness in cement composites.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 126 (Nov): 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2016.09.101.
Restuccia, L., A. Reggio, G. A. Ferro, and R. Kamranirad. 2017. “Fractal
analysis of crack paths into innovative carbon-based cementitious com-
posites.” Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 90 (Aug): 133–141. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.tafmec.2017.03.016.
Roberts, K. G., B. A. Gloy, S. Joseph, N. R. Scott, and J. Lehmann. 2010.
“Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic,
economic, and climate change potential.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2):
827–833. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902266r.
Rukzon, S., P. Chindaprasirt, and R. Mahachai. 2009. “Effect of grinding
on chemical and physical properties of rice husk ash.” Int. J. Miner.
Metall. Mater. 16 (2): 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-4799
(09)60041-8.
Sadaka, S., M. A. Sharara, A. Ashworth, P. Keyser, F. Allen, and A. Wright.
2014. “Characterization of biochar from switchgrass carbonization.”
Energies 7 (2): 548–567. https://doi.org/10.3390/en7020548.
Saint Akadiri, S., A. A. Alola, G. Olasehinde-Williams, and M. U.
Etokakpan. 2020. “The role of electricity consumption, globalization
and economic growth in carbon dioxide emissions and its implications
© ASCE 03121001-11
View publication stats J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(12): 03121001
for environmental sustainability targets.” Sci. Total Environ. 708 (Mar):
134653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134653.
Sakai, E., S. Miyahara, S. Ohsawa, S. H. Lee, and M. Daimon. 2005.
“Hydration of fly ash cement.” Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6): 1135–1140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.008.
Scheer, C., P. R. Grace, D. W. Rowlings, S. Kimber, and L. Van Zwieten.
2011. “Effect of biochar amendment on the soil-atmosphere exchange
of greenhouse gases from an intensive subtropical pasture in northern
New South Wales, Australia.” Plant Soil 345 (1): 47–58. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11104-011-0759-1.
Shaaban, A., S. M. Se, N. M. M. Mitan, and M. F. Dimin. 2013. “Char-
acterization of biochar derived from rubber wood sawdust through slow
pyrolysis on surface porosities and functional groups.” Procedia Eng.
68: 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.12.193.
Singh, B., B. P. Singh, and A. L. Cowie. 2010. “Characterisation and evalu-
ation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment.” Aust. J. Soil
Res. 48 (7): 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10058.
Sirico, A., P. Bernardi, B. Belletti, A. Malcevschi, E. Dalcanale, I.
Domenichelli, P. Fornoni, and E. Moretti. 2020. “Mechanical charac-
terization of cement-based materials containing biochar from gasifica-
tion.” Constr. Build. Mater. 246 (Jun): 118490. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2020.118490.
Tan, K., X. Pang, Y. Qin, and J. Wang. 2020. “Properties of cement mortar
containing pulverized biochar pyrolyzed at different temperatures.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 263 (Dec): 120616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2020.120616.
Thomas, M., R. D. Hooton, C. Rogers, and B. Fournier. 2012. “50 years old
and still going strong.” Concr. Int. 34 (1): 35–40.
Tsang, C. F., J. Birkholzer, and J. Rutqvist. 2008. “A comparative review of
hydrologic issues involved in geologic storage of CO2 and injection
disposal of liquid waste.” Environ. Geol. 54 (8): 1723–1737. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0949-6.
Varadharajan, S., A. Jaiswal, and S. Verma. 2020. “Assessment of mechani-
cal properties and environmental benefits of using rice husk ash and
marble dust in concrete.” Structures 28 (Dec): 389–406. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.005.
Wahi, R., N. F. Q. A. Zuhaidi, Y. Yusof, J. Jamel, D. Kanakaraju, and
Z. Ngaini. 2017. “Chemically treated microwave-derived biochar: An
overview.” Biomass Bioenergy 107 (Dec): 411–421. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.biombioe.2017.08.007.
Weber, K., and P. Quicker. 2018. “Properties of biochar.” Fuel 217 (Apr):
240–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.12.054.
Wei, H., S. Deng, B. Hu, Z. Chen, B. Wang, J. Huang, and G. Yu. 2012.
“Granular bamboo-derived activated carbon for high CO2 adsorption:
The dominant role of narrow micropores.” ChemSusChem 5 (12):
2354–2360. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201200570.
Worrell, E., L. Price, N. Martin, C. Hendriks, and L. O. Meida. 2001.
“Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry.” Annu.
Rev. Energy Env. 26 (1): 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev
.energy.26.1.303.
Xi, F., et al. 2016. “Substantial global carbon uptake by cement carbona-
tion.” Nat. Geosci. 9 (12): 880–883. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2840.
Yu, K. L., B. F. Lau, P. L. Show, H. C. Ong, T. C. Ling, W. H. Chen, E. P.
Ng, and J. S. Chang. 2017. “Recent developments on algal biochar pro-
duction and characterization.” Bioresour. Technol. 246 (Dec): 2–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.009.
Zeidabadi, Z. A., S. Bakhtiari, H. Abbaslou, and A. R. Ghanizadeh. 2018.
“Synthesis, characterization and evaluation of biochar from agricultural
waste biomass for use in building materials.” Constr. Build. Mater.
181 (Aug): 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.271.
Zeng, N. 2008. “Carbon sequestration via wood burial.” Carbon Balance
Manage. 3 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1.
Zhang, Z., F. Yang, J. C. Liu, and S. Wang. 2020. “Eco-friendly high
strength, high ductility engineered cementitious composites (ECC) with
substitution of fly ash by rice husk ash.” Cem. Concr. Res. 137 (Nov):
106200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106200.
Zubin, X. 2010. “Effects of biochar on corn growth, nutrient uptake and
soil chemical properties in seeding stage.” Soil Environ. Sci. 19 (11):
2713–2717.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.