Perfect 👍 You’re right — the Literature Review (Chapter Two) is always the section most at risk for
plagiarism because it summarizes other people’s work. I’ll now rewrite Chapter Two in plagiarism-clean
form, while keeping all your citations, technical details, and academic tone.
---
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW (Paraphrased Version)
---
2.1 Composition and Properties of Cement Mortar
Cement mortar is widely used in construction for masonry, plastering, flooring, and similar applications.
It is typically prepared from cement, fine aggregates (sand), and water, and hardens over time through
hydration reactions. The performance of mortar — including its strength, durability, and workability —
depends on the characteristics of its ingredients (Najeeb & Mosaberpanah, 2023; Wilkie & Dyer, 2024).
Cement functions as the primary binder, forming calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gel during hydration,
which provides strength, and calcium hydroxide, which affects durability (Liu et al., 2024). Ordinary
Portland Cement (OPC) remains the most common binder, containing phases such as C₃S, C₂S, C₃A, and
C₄AF. Sand acts as filler, improving workability and reducing shrinkage, while its gradation and
cleanliness influence mortar performance (Srivastava & Singh, 2020; Arulmoly & Konthesingha, 2022).
The water-to-cement (w/c) ratio is also crucial: too much water increases porosity, while too little water
hinders hydration (Stolarska & Strzałkowski, 2020).
Mortar properties are generally classified as fresh (workability, flow, setting times, water retention) and
hardened (compressive strength, tensile/flexural strength, bond strength, and durability). Workability
determines how easily mortar can be mixed and applied, while air content influences both durability and
strength. Hardened properties include compressive strength, which is the primary measure of load
capacity, and durability aspects such as resistance to water ingress, sulfate attack, and chloride
penetration (Martínez-García et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2024). Microstructural analyses using SEM or
XRD provide insights into hydration products and pore refinement, which are directly linked to strength
and long-term performance (de Oliveira et al., 2023).
---
2.2 Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs)
SCMs are materials that, when used with Portland cement, contribute to hydration and improve the
performance of mortar and concrete. They can either be pozzolanic — reacting with calcium hydroxide
to form additional C–S–H — or latent hydraulic, which means they develop cementitious properties
when activated (Petkova et al., 2024; Ndahirwa et al., 2022).
The use of SCMs lowers cement consumption, reduces CO₂ emissions, and enhances strength, durability,
and workability (Cheah et al., 2021). Depending on their source, SCMs include fly ash, silica fume,
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin, and a wide variety of agricultural waste ashes.
---
2.2.1 Common Types of SCMs
Fly ash: A by-product of coal combustion in power plants, rich in silica and alumina. It reacts with
calcium hydroxide to produce more C–S–H, improving strength, sulfate resistance, and workability
(Kaladharan et al., 2021).
Silica fume: An ultrafine material from silicon alloy production. Its small particle size enhances density
and early-age strength, making it suitable for high-performance concrete (Xi et al., 2022; Gowthaman &
Sudha, 2024).
GGBS: Produced during iron and steel manufacture. It hydrates to form durable cementitious
compounds, improves sulfate and chloride resistance, and reduces the heat of hydration, which is
beneficial for mass concrete works (Gutsalenko, 2020).
Metakaolin: Derived from calcined kaolinite clay. It enhances strength, reduces permeability, and
improves durability in aggressive environments (Zhan et al., 2020; Pillay et al., 2022).
Agricultural waste ashes: Examples include rice husk ash, bagasse ash, corn cob ash, groundnut husk
ash, sorghum husk ash, and palm oil fuel ash. These ashes are rich in amorphous silica and can replace
part of cement in mortar and concrete, improving strength and sustainability (Amran et al., 2021a;
Abdalla et al., 2024; Tijani et al., 2022).
---
2.2.2 Effects of SCMs on Mortar and Concrete
Incorporating SCMs refines pore structure, reduces permeability, enhances sulfate and chloride
resistance, and improves long-term strength. For instance, pozzolans like silica fume or rice husk ash
accelerate early strength gain, while fly ash and POFA improve strength gradually at later ages
(Kaladharan et al., 2021; Su & Xu, 2024). SCMs also lower the heat of hydration in mass concrete,
reducing cracking risks (Xi et al., 2022). Overall, SCMs are critical for sustainable construction, minimizing
environmental impacts while maintaining performance (Ndahirwa et al., 2022).
---
2.3 Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) in Cement-Based Materials
POFA is produced when palm oil biomass residues are burned as fuel. Its disposal poses environmental
challenges, but its high silica content makes it a potential SCM (Hamada et al., 2021). Chemically, POFA
contains SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃, which support pozzolanic activity (Hamada et al., 2023). To maximize
performance, POFA is usually ground to fine particles (<45 μm), as this increases reactivity and packing
density (Liew et al., 2024).
When incorporated into mortar, POFA reacts with calcium hydroxide to form secondary C–S–H gel,
improving microstructure, strength, and durability (Amran et al., 2021b). Studies indicate that partial
replacement levels of 5–20% yield optimal results. Higher dosages may reduce early strength due to
dilution but improve long-term performance (Samuel, 2012; Mhaya et al., 2022). POFA-blended mortar
also shows lower water absorption, better chloride and sulfate resistance, and enhanced durability in
aggressive environments (Belal Gamal, 2015; Salih et al., 2014).
---
2.4 Sorghum Husk Ash (SHA) as a Pozzolanic Material
Sorghum husks, generated as agricultural residues, can be calcined to produce SHA. This ash is rich in
reactive silica, which combines with calcium hydroxide during hydration to form additional C–S–H gel,
thereby strengthening mortar (Tijani et al., 2018; Ogunbode et al., 2021). SHA has silica contents ranging
from 50–75%, depending on burning temperature. Controlled calcination (around 600–800°C) enhances
its pozzolanic reactivity, whereas excessive temperatures reduce it (Tijani et al., 2018).
Research shows that SHA replacement levels between 5% and 20% provide the best balance of strength
and sustainability (Tijani et al., 2019). Microstructural studies using SEM and XRD confirm SHA’s ability
to densify mortar and reduce porosity (Opadotun, 2024). Pretreatment methods, such as fine grinding
or chemical activation, further improve its reactivity (Adeola & Musa, 2023; Bello et al., 2025).
---
2.5 Role of Nano-Silica (NS) in Cement Mortar
Nano-silica (SiO₂) has gained significant attention as a high-performance SCM due to its extremely fine
particle size (<100 nm), high surface area, and strong pozzolanic reactivity (Tabish et al., 2023; Najeeb &
Mosaberpanah, 2023). NS accelerates hydration, increases secondary C–S–H formation, and refines the
microstructure, resulting in denser and stronger mortar.
Studies show that small dosages (1–3% by weight of cement) significantly improve early-age
compressive strength, while excessive contents (>4%) may cause particle agglomeration, reducing
workability (Akaleme, 2021). NS also enhances durability by lowering permeability and improving
resistance to chemical attack, carbonation, and chloride ingress (Abhilash et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021).
However, NS increases water demand, which often requires the use of superplasticizers to maintain
workability (Senff et al., 2016).
Overall, NS offers a promising pathway toward high-strength, durable, and sustainable mortar when
properly optimized. Its use in combination with POFA and SHA may create synergistic benefits that this
study aims to evaluate.
---
✅ Now Chapter Two is paraphrased into original academic language while preserving all key details,
citations, and technical content.
---
👉 Do you want me to move on and rewrite Chapter Three (Methodology) next, or would you like me to
first prepare a side-by-side comparison (original vs paraphrased) for one section so you can clearly see
the difference?