Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: [Link]/heliyon

Research article

Enhancing the engineering characteristics of sustainable recycled

aggregate concrete using fly ash, metakaolin and silica fume
Mohammed Alamri a, Tariq Ali b, Hawreen Ahmed c, d,
Muhammad Zeeshan Qureshi e, *, Asad Elmagarhe f, Muhammad Adil Khan g,
Ali Ajwad h, Muhammad Sarmad Mahmood b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Swedish College of Engineering and Technology, Wah, 47080, Pakistan
c
Department of Highway and Bridge Engineering, Technical Engineering College, Erbil Polytechnic University, Erbil, 44001, Iraq
d
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Nawroz University, Duhok, 42001, Iraq
e
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan
f
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA
g
The University of Faisalabad, Civil Engineering Department, Pakistan
h
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present global environment is facing growing issues linked to production of concrete, mostly
RA (Recycled aggregate) due to high consumption of concrete as the dominating construction material globally. In today’s
RCA (Recycled concrete aggregate) climate of environmental sustainability, recycled concrete production using RA (recycled ag­
FA (Fly ash)
gregates) requires a more holistic approach. This study examined how recycled aggregate (RA),
MK(Metakaolin)
metakaolin, silica fume and fly ash affect mechanical characteristics (compressive strength, split
tensile strength), and durability characteristics (acid resistance, absorption, sorptivity) of con­
crete. The objective of this investigation is to figure out how the potential of RA based concrete
can be improved so that they can be used to their maximum extent. To achieve the desired
outcome, the study involved testing three distinct groups of concrete samples, each containing
different percentages (25%, 50%, and 75%) of recycled aggregate (RA) with a constant amount of
silica fume, (25 kg/m3). The first group was used as the control mix, while the second group
incorporated 10% fly ash, and the third group included 15% metakaolin. The findings of this
research show that the RA concrete mechanical properties as well as durability can be signifi­
cantly improved by incorporating 15% metakaolin and 10% fly ash. The investigation involves
the examination of all ternary blends within two distinct acidic environments, specifically a 5%
hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Both the ternary mixes (metakaolin
and fly ash) with the combination of silica improve all characteristics. The quality assurance, cost
analysis and the reduction of CO2 emissions are carried out, utilizing RA (recycled aggregates) as
a substitute for NA (natural aggregate). In case of producing superior structural concrete, it is
recommended based on results to limit the replacement percentage of recycled aggregate (RA) to
a maximum of 50% in presence of 10% fly ash and 15% metakaolin, otherwise the RA replace­
ment percentage should not be more than 25%.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qureshizeeshan746@[Link] (M.Z. Qureshi).

[Link]
Received 19 October 2023; Received in revised form 1 March 2024; Accepted 28 March 2024
Available online 5 April 2024
2405-8440/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license
([Link]
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

1. Introduction

The utilization of concrete in construction sector has become prevalent due to its ability to be used in creating various architectural
structures such as foundations, pavements, walls, bridges, highways, parking structures, runways, dams, pipes, fences, poles etc.
Because of this, cement-based concrete is in high demand for building. The future demand for concrete is expected to rise because of
rising investment in new infrastructure. It has been reported that the rate of consumption of cement and concrete is expected to rise due
to the ongoing growth of housing construction and infrastructure, particularly in the developing nations of Asia, South America, and
Africa. The global production of cement is projected to exceed 4.8 billion tonnes by the year 2030 [1]. Consequently, there will be a
corresponding increase in the manufacturing of concrete. This has two negative effects: first, it uses up natural resources, and second, it
creates more debris from the demolition.
Construction and demolition operations generate significant volumes of garbage, commonly indicated to as waste from con­
struction and demolition (CDW). The disposal of large amounts of CDW induces environmental concerns, primarily related to the
extensive use of land for waste dumping and the subsequent pollution of soil. To mitigate the impacts of these concerns, the building
industries as well as scholars have explored diverse approaches as potential resolutions to these issues. One potential approach is the
incorporation of CDW within concrete construction. It might be reused for use in both fine and coarse aggregate applications [2].
The detrimental effects of creating natural aggregate, such as loss of natural resources, impact on the surroundings, can be miti­
gated using recycled aggregate from demolished concrete, which is considered a waste product. In addition to the mechanical
properties, the material’s durability is also a crucial parameter for construction. Many experts have debated for decades whether it is
possible to use recycled aggregate in concrete production [3]. While the environmental benefits of using CDW in concrete are un­
disputed, however these material’s application is still limited [4,5]. The primary reason resulting to the limited adoption of RCA in
substitute of NA (natural aggregate) is the presence of uncertainty and variability in its properties and performance. The concrete
incorporating such aggregate exhibits inferior performance compared to concrete utilizing conventional aggregate [6,7].
RCA-based concrete is weak, porous, shrinks and creeps excessively, and has a high-water absorption rate [8–10]. The degree to
which concrete’s strength decreases is dependent on the RCA’s content. The decrease of 40% is reported in compression strength when
natural aggregate concrete (NAC) is replaced with RAC [11]. Furthermore, it was observed that RAC demonstrates a decrease in
splitting tensile strength of around 25%, 30% when RA is used in higher percentages. That is why that RAC is strictly allowed in small
percentage to be used in structural concrete according to international rules of practice [12]. The fundamental reason for such
behavior of RAC is the heterogeneous character of the RCA and its composition. The RCA contains old mortar residue remaining
attached to their surfaces which make them porous and weak [13].
Many experiments have been conducted to improve recycled concrete aggregates’ characteristics to improve concrete’s durability
and mechanical properties [14–17]. The treatment and procedures often employed for reinforced concrete structures typically
encompass either the addition of attached mortar or the elimination of adherent mortar. The improvement of adhering mortar en­
compasses a range of methodologies, including the modification of concrete mix proportions, the integration of supplemental
cementitious materials (SCM), the application of organic and inorganic admixtures to RCA, and the use of cementitious solutions [18].
Pozzolanic materials offer a promising way to enhance the ITZ (interfacial transition zone) microstructure and RAC properties. The
cement composition and concrete performance are greatly improved by adding cementitious components [19]. Singh et al. demon­
strate that including supplemental cementitious materials (SCMs) can significantly enhance RCA and concrete characteristics. This
improvement can be ascribed to the reduced grain size and improved reactivity associated with the usage of SCMs [20].
Metakaolin is a substance composed of alumina and silicate, which is obtained from soil with significant concentrations of kaolinite
[21]. MK is derived through the process of thermal activation, wherein clay soils are subjected to elevated temperatures ranging from
650 to 900 ◦ C [22]. MK is distinct from different mineral additives such as SF, FA, and GBFS due to its ability to be well regulated
during manufacturing, resulting in minimal variation in composition and achieving high levels of purity [23]. Additionally, MK ex­
hibits a high degree of pozzolanic reactivity. RCA’s strength and durability improve with the use metakaolin [24]. Particle size and the
pozzolanic reaction give metakaolin (MK) its beneficial properties, including a high surface area. The pozzolanic reaction usually takes
place in water when metakaolin’s silicon dioxide (SiO2) and alumina oxide (Al2O3) interact with calcium hydrates (CH), a result of
cement hydration [25]. The amount of C–S–H gel that forms this chemical reaction is a major factor in the mortar paste’s hardness. The
pozzolanic reaction changes the cement paste’s pore structure, which improves the microstructure and the concrete performance [26,
27]. The use of metakaolin to enhance the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of normal concrete includes RCA as a
substitute for coarse natural aggregate. This is because of the beneficial effects of pozzolanic and metakaolin filler [28].
The combustion of coal in electric power plants produces fly ash, a common supplemental cementitious material (SCM) in concrete
[29]. When utilized as a cement alternative, fly ash improves material characteristics and sustainability [30]. Environmental sus­
tainability can be achieved by using FA as an SCM to reduce CO2 emissions, preserve natural resources, manage waste efficiently,
reduce environmental pollution, and minimize excessive heat [31–33]. The usage of RA in combination with the utilization of fly ash
replacements presents notable economic and environmental benefits in comparison to normal concrete. The impact of both RCA and
fly ash (FA) on the durability and mechanical characteristics of concrete has been thoroughly investigated. These investigations have
revealed that increased amounts of RCA and FA are harmful to the strength of concrete. However, it has been observed that the
integration of FA enhances the durability qualities of concrete [34–36].

2
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

2. Novelty of research

Recycled aggregate is becoming increasingly popular in response to the current construction requirements and the availability of
advanced strength-enhancing technology. Different techniques were used by the researchers such as treatment of recycled aggregate,
use of mineral admixture, influence of mixing approaches in order to get more durable concrete mix [37–39]. The objective is to
examine the efficacy of RCA (recycled concrete aggregate) when combined by a constant amount of silica fume, in conjunction with fly
ash and metakaolin. The available literature on the evaluation of performance in the scenario of using ternary blends for RCA is
relatively limited. This study intends to provide novel insights into the mechanical and durability properties linked with the utilization
of ternary mixes of SCMs. It is apparent that the utilization of additive combinations in concrete yields superior outcomes in com­
parison to the use of a single addition [40,41].

3. Experimental program

3.1. Materials

3.1.1. Binder
The primary binding agent use in this research was OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) of ASTM 53 Grade, which corresponds to the
specifications stated in ASTM C150 (2018). The initial and final setting time for control cement paste was 78 min and 267 min, fly ash
paste was 87 min and 271 min, and metakaolin paste was 102 min and 283 min. The brand “Fauji Cement” is widely recognized as a
prominent local supplier of Portland cement. The fly ash (F class) was sourced from the power plant located in Port Qasim Karachi,
Pakistan. Metakaolin is obtained from a region of Soorh, within the District of Sindh, Pakistan. The silica fume utilized was sourced
from Imporient Chemicals in Pakistan. The physical characteristics and chemical composition of OPC, silica fume, fly ash and met­
akaolin are shown in Table 1.

3.1.2. Aggregates
The fine aggregate was sourced from the area of Lawrencepur and sieved as per ASTM C136-06. In this research, Margalla Crush
was used, the best aggregate material available in Pakistan. Coarse aggregate was replaced with recycled aggregate. The sieve analysis
results are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The physical properties of Coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and recycled aggregate are mentioned in
Table 2. Fig. 3 shows the physical appearance of natural and recycled aggregate.

3.2. Rational selection

In the past two decades, there has been extensive research on binary mixes. However, more recently, studies have shifted towards
investigating the properties using ternary blended concrete. This is because ternary blends have been found to be more beneficial than
binary blends [42]. The study utilized various blends of cement substitute from 10% to 40% for fly ash (FA) and 5%–10% for silica
fume (SF) to create a ternary mixed concrete. SCMs can improve initial and final concrete characteristics when added to combined
concrete mixes. They can make concrete stronger, cheaper, and even more durable [43]. The optimal cement substitution with
metakaolin is 10%–15%, and it considerably improves concrete strength and durability [43].

3.3. Concrete proportioning & mix design

This study includes three distinct groups, G-01, G-02, and G-03. These groups are subdivided into four subgroups (F0-M0-R0, F0-

Table 1
Physical and chemical properties of OPC, Silica fume, Fly ash and Metakaolin.
Components Chemical Properties (%)

Cement Fly ash Metakaolin Silica Fume

(Al2O3) 7.2 21.2 28.1 0.07

(MgO) 2.6 – 0.7 0.4
(SiO2) 20.3 65 67.3 94.8
(K2O) 0.8 0.08 0.9 0.89
(Cao) 63.5 3.2 0.21 0.7
(SO3) 1.6 – 0.13 2.11
(Fe2O3) 3.2 8.2 1.01 0.73
LOI 0.8 2.4 1.65 0.3
Physical Properties
Parameters Cement Fly ash Metakaolin

Sp. Gravity 2.78 2.26 2.24

Particle size (avg) 15–17 μm 5–7 μm 2–3 μm
Surface area (cm2/g) 3180 156000 166000
Bulk Density (kg/m3) 1370 920 895

3
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Fig. 1. Sieve analysis of Coarse Aggregate.

Fig. 2. Sieve analysis of Fine Aggregate.

Fig. 3. The physical appearance of natural and recycled aggregate.

Table 2
Coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, and RCA physical properties.
Parameters Aggregate RCA

Coarse Fine

Fineness Modulus – 2.61 –

Sp. Gravity 2.64 2.63 2.2–2.4
Water Absorption (%) 0.69 0.64 6.3
Unit Weight (kg/m3) 1592 1712 1510
Los Angle abrasion (%) 17.3 – 20.4
Flakiness index (%) 8.2 – 12.8
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1635 1530 1555

4
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

M0-R25, F0-M0-R50 & F0-M0-R75) corresponding to the RCA percentage (0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%). The research used cement with a
specific gravity of 3.14. Although locally available crush was utilized, the maximum size of the crush is recorded as 1 inch below
according to sieve analysis. Locally available water is utilized to attain an appropriate blend. The recycled aggregates utilized have a
particle size of half an inch and 46% of them are retained on a 3/4 sieve. The superplasticizer naphthalene formaldehyde is used in
accordance with ASTM C 494. Table 3 presents the compositions of these mixes.

4. Preparation of specimens and testing

Concrete casting utilized sand, cement, and aggregate that were readily accessible within the local area. The concrete mixture was
made through a mixer operating at a speed of 55 rpm. A homogenous mixture was achieved by carefully adding water and super­
plasticizer, and to facilitate thorough blending, the mixture was continuously rotated for a duration of 3 min. Recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA) were used under saturated surface dry (SSD) conditions to reduce inadequate water absorption. At 1:1.5:3 ratio,
binders were mixed with coarse and fine material. All the combinations were prepared with the same W/C ratio of 0.5. As stated in
Table 4, an overall 432 samples were cast and examined. All tests are carried out in accordance with the ASTM requirements as shown
in Fig. 4.

5. Results & discussion

5.1. Density

The results shown in Fig. 5 revealed that value of density is 2331 kg/m3 after 28days in case of F0-M0-R0 mix, while for F0-M0-R25
mix the decrease is from 2331 kg/m3 to 2296 kg/m3 observed, Similarly for F0-M0-R50 the decreased value is 2283 kg/m3,
Furthermore for F0-M0-R75 the density reduce from 2331 to 2266 kg/m3. Adding of 10% fly ash in presence of silica fume (25 kg/m3)
increased the density of the RAC. The findings revealed that value of density is 2337aggregate (ase of F10-M0-R0, while for adding the
recycled aggregate (25%) F10-M0-R25 the decrease is from 2337 kg/m3 to 2312 kg/m3 observed, Similarly for adding the recycled
aggregate (50%) F10-M0-R50 the decreased value is 2292 kg/m3, Furthermore for adding the recycled aggregate (75%) F0-M0-R75the
density decrease from 2337 kg/m3 to 2279 kg/m3.
The addition of 15% Metakaolin in existence of silica fume (25 kg/m3) also enhanced the density of the RA based concrete due to its
finer particles which improved the packing density of the mixes. The results revealed that value of density 234aggregate (case of F10-
M0-R0 mix, while for adding the recycled aggregate (25%) F10-M0-R25 the density decrease from 2349 to 2332 kg/m3, Similarly for
adding the recycled aggregate (50%) F10-M0-R50 the decreased value is 2307 kg/m3, Furthermore for adding the recycled aggregate
(75%) for F0-M0-R75 the decrease from 2349 kg/m3 to 2289 kg/m3 is found.
In this study, the CONTROL group generated higher density values. The inclusion of different percentages of RCA (25%, 50%, 75%)
indicated a decrease in density in comparison sto the control sample. It has been observed a density reduction of 2.5% within concrete
specimens when 6% of NA was substituted with RCA [44]. The density of finished concrete is reduced since RCA comprises adhere
mortar and ceramic particles [45,46]. It was observed that there was a reduction in density by 1.2% with the use of RCA [47,48]. The

Table 3
Composition of concrete mixes.
Mixes Cement kg/ Silica Fume (kg/ Fly ash kg/ Metakaolin Fine RCA Coarse W/C Plasticizer
m3 m3) m3 Aggregate Aggregate Ratio (%)

F0-M0-R0 350 25 0 0 655 0 1055 0.5 0.2

F0-M0- 350 25 0 0 655 262.5 787.5 0.5 0.2
R25
F0-M0- 350 25 0 0 655 525 525 0.5 0.2
R50
F0-M0- 350 25 0 0 655 787.5 262.5 0.5 0.2
R75
F10-M0- 315 25 35 0 655 0 1055 0.5 0.4
R0
F10-M0- 315 25 35 0 655 262.5 787.5 0.5 0.4
R25
F10-M0- 315 25 35 0 655 525 525 0.5 0.4
R50
F10-M0- 315 25 35 0 655 787.5 262.5 0.5 0.4
R75
F0-M15- 297.5 25 0 52.5 655 0 1055 0.5 0.6
R0
F0-M15- 297.5 25 0 52.5 655 262.5 787.5 0.5 0.6
R25
F0-M15- 297.5 25 0 52.5 655 525 525 0.5 0.6
R50
F0-M15- 297.5 25 0 52.5 655 787.5 262.5 0.5 0.6
R75

5
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Table 4
Details of specimens.
Testing details Strength Parameters Durability Parameters

Compressive Tensile Acid Resistance Water absorption

Specimen Details 150 × 300 (mm) 150 × 300 (mm) 150 × 300 (mm) 100 × 150 (mm)
Cylinders

Curing 14 days 3 3 3 3
28 days 3 3 3 3
90 days 3 3 3 3

Total (1 blend) 36
Total (12 blends) 432

Fig. 4. (A) Compression Testing (B) Split Testing (C) Failure Samples with different RA content.

decrease in density is directly associated with the decline in compactness and the general quality associated with the concrete material.
The correlation between density and compressive strength is displayed in Fig. 6.

5.2. Strength parameters

5.2.1. Compressive strength

Previous studies reveals that as the proportion of RA in concrete rises, the concrete’s density, strength, and durability all decrease
[49–51]. Compressive strength for all three groups (G-01, G-02 and G-03) is shown in the given Fig. 7. Each group is further divided
into four subgroups (F0-M0-R0, F0-M0-R25, F0-M0-R50 & F0-M0-R75) based on the RCA percentage (0%,25%, 50% and 75%). In all
mixtures, strength gain is greater in the early days and decreases significantly from 28 to 90 days. It is found that the strength increases
with age (14 Days, 28 & 90 Days) for all combinations (0%RCA, 25% RCA, and 75% RCA). Associated to the control mix (F0-M0-R0),
strength is decrease for 25% RCA group (F0-M0-R25) by about 3.6%,1.8% and 2.2% while for 50 % RCA (F0-M0-R50) the decrease is
about 6.9%,4% and 7% similarly for 75 % RCA (F0-M0-R75) the decrease is about 12.9%,7%and 9% at 14, 28 and 90 days respectively.

6
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Fig. 5. Density results of all Groups.

Fig. 6. Correlation of Compressive strength & Density.

Fig. 7. Compressive Strength results of all Groups at 14,28 & 90days.

Concrete water content increases with RCA percentage, decreasing compressive strength. The findings indicated a decrease in
compressive strength of around 25% for specimens containing 50% RCA, and a reduction of up to 18% for mixtures containing 15–30%
RCA. This finding confirms the limited strength of RCA due to inadequate mortar adhesion [52].
Furthermore, with the usage of 10% fly ash in contrast to the reference mix (F10-M0-R0), the compressive strength containing 25%
recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) group (F10-M0-R25) experiences a reduction of approximately 2.8%, 3%, and 2% at 14, 28, and 90
days, respectively. Similarly, for the 50% RCA group (F10-M0-R50), the decrease in compressive strength is approximately 5%, 6%,
and 5% at the same time intervals. Furthermore, for the 75% RCA group (F10-M0-R75), the decrease in strength is approximately 14%,
7%, and 7.7% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. The utilization of FA in the existence of calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)2) within RCA
results in the depletion of Ca (OH)2, the development of C–S–H gel, and ultimately adds to the improvement of concrete strength [53].
The inclusion of a 15% MK the strength containing 25% RCA group (F0-M15-R25) exhibits a decrease of approximately 1%, 2%,

7
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

and 2.2% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. In a similar vein, the group consisting of 50% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) exhibits
a reduction in compressive strength of roughly 5%, 5.3%, and 5% throughout the corresponding time intervals. In addition, it is seen
that the 75% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) group, denoted as F0-M15-R75, experiences a decrease in strength of around 7%, 9%,
and 8% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. The use of MK in RAC was seen to address the limitations linked with the utilization of RCA
and substantially improve the mechanical and durability characteristics of RAC [54]. Similar finding revealed that using 15% met­
akaolin with RAC containing 50% and 100% RCA leads to improvements in compressive strength, by approximately 11% [55].
Furthermore, it has been noted that the usage of 10% metakaolin in RAC show a substantial improvement in compressive strength
[56]. The potential cause for the reduced compressive strength of RAC is attributed to the existence of weak adhering mortar.
Compared to natural aggregate, unprocessed recycled aggregate thickens the surface mortar.
Concrete containing 25% RCA has a 1.8% lower compressive strength compared to the control mix, as seen in Fig. 8. Concrete
containing 50% RCA has a 4% strength drop. The strength of 75% RCA concrete is 6.5% lower than control concrete. Mix (F10-M0-R0)
specimens have 28.7 MPa compressive strength after curing of 28 days and are being compared to other strengths. The control mix has
2.2% higher compressive strength than concrete containing 25% RCA. Similarly, 5.1% strength reduction is observed in concrete
treated with 50% RCA when contrasted with the control concrete. The concrete strength with 75% RCA is 6.9% lower than control
concrete. In the same way, different strength values are being compared to the mix (F0-M15-R0) specimen’s compressive strength,
which is 29.5 MPa after curing of 28 days. In comparison to the control mix, concrete containing 25% RCA has a 2.4% lower
compressive strength while for 50% RCA the reduction is 6.7%. Furthermore, concrete containing 75% RCA exhibits a 9.2% reduction
in strength.

5.2.2. Tensile strength

Tensile for all three groups (G-01, G-02 and G-03) is shown in the given Fig. 9. Each group is further divided into four subgroups
(F0-M0-R0, F0-M0-R25, F0-M0-R50 & F0-M0-R75) based on the RCA percentage (0%,25%, 50% and 75%). It is found that the strength
increases with age (14 Days, 28 & 90 Days) for all mixtures (0%RCA, 25% RCA, and 75% RCA). Compared to the reference mix (F0-M0-
R0), tensile strength is reduced for 25% RCA group (F0-M0-R25) by about 1%,2% and 5% while for 50 % RCA (F0-M0-R50) the
decrease is about 14%,6% and 9% similarly for 75 % RCA (F0-M0-R75) the decrease is about 17%,18%and 9% at 14, 28 and 90 days
respectively. The decrease in tensile strength can be determined by the observation that as the proportion of RCA in concrete rises, the
water content of the concrete also increases. Similar study demonstrated that the mechanical characteristics of concrete manufactured
with RCA and Portland Pozzolana Cement exhibited similar trends. According to the previous study results, using RA significantly
reduces concrete tensile strength [57]. Notably, the utilization of RA has no effect on the 50 MPa strength of high-quality recycled
concrete aggregate (RCA). In contrast, the usage of RCA significantly reduces the strength of conventional concrete [58].
Furthermore, with the use of 10% fly ash in comparison to mix (F10-M0-R0), the STS of the 25% RCA group (F10-M0-R25) ex­
periences a reduction of approximately 4%, 5%, and 10% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. Similarly, for the 50% RCA group (F10-
M0-R50), the decrease in tensile strength is approximately 5%, 13%, and 18% at the same time intervals. Furthermore, for the 75%
RCA group (F10-M0-R75), the reduction in tensile strength is approximately 15%, 22%, and 24% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively.
The similar study, which utilized a mixture containing 30% fly ash and incorporated partial or full replacement of RCA, yielded
findings that indicate the enhancement of strength parameters because of pozzolanic characteristics of fly ash and the reduced particle
size. This improvement can be ascribed to the occurrence of a pozzolanic relations between fly ash and portlandite [59].
The inclusion of a 15% MK the strength of the 25% RCA group (F0-M15-R25) exhibits a decrease of approximately 6%, 7%, and 6%
at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. In a similar vein, the group consisting of 50% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) exhibits a
reduction in tensile strength of about 7%, 17%, and 13% throughout the corresponding time intervals. In addition, it is seen that the
75% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) group, denoted as F0-M15-R75, experiences a decrease in tensile strength of around 13%,
23%, and 18% at 14, 28, and 90 days, respectively. According to previous research findings, the incorporation of 15% metakaolin RAC
containing 50% and 100% RCA show a notable improvement of 18% in the STS [60]. It has also been confirmed that the use of 10% MK
with RCA increased STS (splitting tensile strength) [61,62].
The tensile strength of concrete containing 25% RCA is 1.4% lower, as shown in Fig. 10. Concrete with 50% RCA has a 5.5%
decrease in strength than control concrete. The strength of 75% RCA is 17.2% lower than control concrete. The blend (F10-M0-R0)

Fig. 8. Comparison of compressive Strength of all blends.

8
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Fig. 9. Tensile Strength results of all Groups at 14,28 & 90days.

Fig. 10. Comparison of Tensile Strength of all blends.

specimen’s tensile strength after curing of 28 days is 3.24 MPa. Concrete with 25% RCA has a 4.8% lower compressive strength when in
comparison to the control mixture. Concrete with 50% RCA shows a strength drop of 15.1% while the concrete containing 75% RCA
exhibits a 22% reduction in strength. Similarly, after 28 days, the tensile strength of a mix (F0-M15-R0) specimen is 3.4 MPa, and this
value is being compared to the others. Concrete that contains 25% RCA, has a 6.9% lower compressive strength while containing 50%
RCA a reduction is 17.2%. In addition, concrete with 75% RCA exhibits a strength loss of 24.1% than control concrete.
Concrete exhibits a theoretical compressive strength that is eight times higher in comparison to its tensile strength. This observation
implies a consistent relationship between the compressive strength and tensile strength of concrete. While there is no clear propor­
tionality between the two variables, they exhibit a strong correlation. As the compression strength increases, there is a corresponding
drop in the ratio of tensile strength in contrast with compressive strength.
The flexural strength of crushed aggregate surpasses that of rounded natural gravel; however, It is crucial to acknowledge that
neither of these factors has a significant effect on the STS of concrete. The rationale behind this fact is that the cement paste establishes
a more robust adherence to the aggregate particles. Experimental findings indicate a strong relationship between the concrete behavior
of compression and tension, both under direct and flexural loading conditions. However, it is important to note that this relationship is
not strictly linear or proportionate. The tensile-compressive strength ratio is determined by concrete strength. Tensile and compressive

Fig. 11. Correlation of compressive & tensile strength.

9
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

strengths are positively correlated, but at a slower rate. Concrete’s tensile strength is more influenced by improper curing than its
compressive strength. Fig. 11 displays the experimental correlation between tensile and compressive strength.

6. Durability parameters

6.1. Water absorption

The findings in Fig. 12 indicate that the absorption value is 5.3% was observed for the F0-M0-R0 mix. In contrast, with the addition
of 25% RCA (F0-M0-R25), an increase in water absorption from 5.3% to 5.7% was observed. Similarly, with the addition of 50% RCA
(F0-M0-R50), the absorption value increased to 6.1%. Additionally, with incorporation of 75% RCA (F0-M0-R75) an increase from
5.3% to 6.3% was found. The incorporation of fly ash at a concentration of 10% in the presence of silica fume (25 kg/m3) resulted in a
decrease in absorption of the RAC. The findings indicate that the absorption value of F10-M0-R0 is 5.1%. In the case with 25% RCA
(F10-M0-R25), there is an increase in water absorption from 5.1% to 5.4%. Similarly, for 50% RCA (F10-M0-R50), the water ab­
sorption value increases to 5.8%. Additionally, for 10% FA with 75% RCA (F0-M0-R75) exhibits an increase in water absorption from
5.1% to 5.9%.
The inclusion of 15% Metakaolin, together with the presence of silica fume at a concentration of 25 kg/m3, resulted in a decrease in
absorption of the RAC. This enhancement can be ascribed to the finer particles of Metakaolin, which contributed to an increased
packing density of concrete mixtures. The findings indicate that the water absorption value of 4.7% was observed for the F0-M15-R0
mix. In contrast, with the addition of 25% RCA (F0-M15-R25), an increase in water absorption from 4.7% to 4.9% was observed. The
water absorption value increased to 5.3% when 50 % RCA was incorporated (F0-M15-R50). Additionally, an increase in water ab­
sorption from 4.7% to 5.7% was found when 75% RCA was used (F0-M15-R75).
Cement and RCA were subjected to water absorption experiments to determine the change in mass that happens during water
absorption. The findings from these tests, which were carried out on all 12 mixtures, are shown in Fig. 13. Concrete made with RCA has
substantially lower water absorption relative to their early age. The graph depicts the link between the two parameters (compressive
strength and water absorption) observed during this study. Concrete with a higher RCA % is porous and has reduced compressive
strength.

6.2. Acid resistance

In the present investigation, 5% hydrochloric acid (HCL) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) were utilized to initiate chemical reactions with
several concrete compositions including varying quantities of RCA. The chemical compound calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)2) has a
reaction with sulfuric acid (H2SO4) resulting in the formation of calcium sulphate (CaSO4). The concrete’s microstructure undergoes
deterioration due to heightened internal pressure, leading to a decline in both density and strength [63]. Acid resistance is measured
according to ASTM-C642.

6.2.1. Environment –I (5% HCL)

The findings indicate (as shown in Fig. 14) that the original strength is 27.6 MPa was observed after 28 days for the F0-M0-R0 which
is reduced to 25.3 MPa after one month and 20.4 MPa after three months curing in 5% HCl environment. While the original strength of
25% RCA (F0-M0-R25) was 27.1 MPa which is reduced to 24.4 MPa after one month and 19.3 MPa after three months curing in same
environment. Similarly, the original strength of 50% RCA (F0-M0-R50) was 26.5 MPa which is reduced to 23.4 MPa after one month
and 18.5 MPa after three months curing in same environment. In the case of 75% RCA (F0-M0-R75) the original strength was 25.8 MPa
which is reduced to 22.9 MPa after one month and 17.3 MPa after three months curing in same environment.
The incorporation of fly ash at a concentration of 10% in the presence of silica fume (25 kg/m3) resulted in a decrease of the acid
penetration of the RAC. The findings indicate that the original strength is 28.7 MPa was observed after 28 days for the F10-M0-R0

Fig. 12. Water absorption results of all Groups.

10
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Fig. 13. Correlation of Compressive & water absorption.

Fig. 14. Strength reduction of all groups in 5% HCL after 1 and 3 months.

which is reduced to 26.2 MPa after one month and 21.1 MPa after three months curing in 5% HCl environment. While the original
strength of 25% RCA (F10-M0-R25) was 28.1 MPa which is reduced to 25.5 MPa after one month and 20.4 MPa after three months
curing in same environment. Similarly, the original strength of 50% RCA (F10-M0-R50) was 27.3 MPa which is reduced to 24.6 MPa
after one month and 19.3 MPa after three months curing in same environment.
In the case of 75% RCA (F10-M0-R75) the original strength was 26.8 MPa which is reduced to 23.4 MPa after one month and 18.5
MPa after three months curing in same environment. The inclusion of 15% Metakaolin, together with the presence of silica fume at a
concentration of 25 kg/m3, show a reduction in the absorption of the acid into the microstructure of the RAC. This enhancement can be
ascribed to the finer particles of Metakaolin, which contributed to an increased packing density of the concrete mixtures. As per the
finding of the research, the original strength is 29.4 MPa was observed after 28 days for the F0-M15-R0 which is reduced to 27.8 MPa
after one month and 22.8 MPa after three months curing in 5% HCl environment. While the original strength of 25% RCA (F0-M15-
R25) was 28.8 MPa which is reduced to 26.9 MPa after one month and 21.9 MPa after three months curing in same environment.
Similarly, the original strength of 50% RCA (F0-M15-R50) was 27.6 MPa which is reduced to 25.7 MPa after one month and 20.4 MPa
after three months curing in same environment. In the case of 75% RCA (F0-M15-R75) the original strength was 26.9 MPa which is
reduced to 24.9 MPa after one month and 19.6 MPa after three months curing in same environment.

6.2.2. Environment -II (5% H2SO4)

The behavior of RCA is also evaluated in 5% H2SO4 solution and it is examined that under similar circumstances the drop in
strength is more in H2SO4 in comparison to the 5% HCL environment the results are presented in Fig. 15. The original strength for the
F0-M0-R0 which is found to decrease 15% after one month and 33% after three month 5% H2SO4 environment. While for 25% RCA
(F0-M0-R25) the decrease is 18% for one month and 39% for three months. Similarly for 50% RCA (F0-M0-R50) the decrease is 22%
for one month and 41% for three months. In the case of 75% RCA (F0-M0-R75) the decrease is 24% for one month and 45% for three
months. Similarly, the original strength for the F10-M0-R0 which is found to decrease 13% after one month and 32% after three month
5% H2SO4 environment. While for 25% RCA (F10-M0-R25) the decrease is 15% for one month and 33% for three months and for 50%
RCA (F10-M0-R50) the decrease is 16% for one month and 36% for three months. In the case of 75% RCA (F10-M0-R75) the decrease is
21% for one month and 39% for three months. Furthermore, the original strength for the F0-M15-R0 which is found to decrease 9%
after one month and 25% after three month 5% H2SO4 environment. While for 25% RCA (F0-M15-R25) the decrease is 11% for one
month and 28% for three months and for 50% RCA (F0-M15-R50) the decrease is 13% for one month and 33% for three months. In the

11
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

Fig. 15. Strength reduction of all groups in 5% H2SO4 after 1 and 3 months.

case of 75% RCA (F0-M15-R75) the decrease is 15% for one month and 35% for three months.

6.3. Sorptivity test

The sorptivity result (show in Fig. 16) at the 28-day mark was utilized as a reference point, and subsequent findings were examined
and computed relative to this baseline. In the case of 10% fly ash (F10-M0-R0), the sorptivity coefficient at 28 days was observed to be
9% lower for the control mix (F0-M0-R0) and for 25% RCA (F10-M0-R25) having 1.8% greater porosity in case of 50% RCA (F10-M0-
R50) having 5.3% greater while for 75% (F10-M0-R75) having 10.6% greater porosity than 10% fly ash control mix (F10-M0-R0). In
the case of 15% metakaolin (F0-M15-R0), similarly the sorptivity coefficient at 28 days was observed to be 16% lower for the control
mix (F0-M0-R0) and for 25% RCA (F0-M15-R25) having 3.5% greater porosity in case of 50% RCA (F0-M15-R50) having 7.6% greater
while for 75% (F0-M15-R75) having 9.9% greater porosity than 15% metakaolin control mix (F0-M15-R0). The structure of pores in
the concrete microstructure, the dispersion of size of particles, and their porosity collectively led to increased permeability. The
presence of attached mortar on the surface of unrefined recycled aggregate ensures the presence of numerous small pores. The
incorporation of mineral supplements reduces these pores and results in beneficial performance.

7. Quality assurance

Quality assurance is paramount in research endeavors, especially in investigations involving the modification of construction
materials like recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). In this investigation, where the impact of incorporating fly ash and metakaolin on
RCA-based concrete containing silica fumes is examined, careful quality assurance is essential. To make sure the results were
dependable and precise, we carefully conducted a series of standardized tests according to their specific guidelines.
The primary binding agent, Ordinary Portland Cement (ASTM 53 Grade), met the specifications outlined in ASTM C150,
guaranteeing that the foundational material itself conformed to established quality standards. The fine aggregate, sourced from
Lawrencepur, was sieved following the guidelines set forth in ASTM C136-06, confirming the precise gradation of this essential
component. Furthermore, the choice of the best coarse aggregate material, Margalla Crush, adhered to ASTM C33, ensuring that this
critical ingredient met the required quality benchmarks. Silica fume, a key additive, was scrutinized according to the standards
outlined in ASTM C1240-20, offering confidence in its suitability for enhancing the concrete mix. Moreover, the utilization of fly ash
and other pozzolanic constituents was in line with ASTM C618-22, ensuring their compatibility and efficacy in the concrete mixture.
To assess the performance of these modified concrete mixes, several tests were conducted. For compressive strength, 150 × 300 mm

Fig. 16. Sorptivity coefficient (SC) Result at 14,28 and 90days.

12
 M. Alamri et al.
Table 5
Cost analysis of Each blend.
Description Rate Rs/ G1 G2 G3
kg
F0-M0- F0-M0- F0-M0- F0-M0- F10-M0- F10-M0- F10-M0- F10-M0- F0-M15- F0-M15- F0-M15- F0-M15-
R0 R25 R50 R75 R0 R25 R50 R75 R0 R25 R50 R75

Cement 28 9800 9800 9800 9800 8820 8820 8820 8820 8330 8330 8330 8330
Silica Fume 11 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Fly Ash 8 0 0 0 0 280 280 280 280 0 0 0 0
Metakaolin 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 367.5 367.5 367.5 367.5
13

Fine Aggregate 4 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620 2620
Coarse Aggregate 6 6330 4725 3150 1575 6330 4725 3150 1575 6330 4725 3150 1575
RCA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water 5 875 875 875 875 787.5 787.5 787.5 787.5 743.75 743.75 743.75 743.75
Plasticizer 20 42 63 84 105 56.7 75.6 94.5 113.4 71.4 89.25 107.1 119
Total Rate (PKR) 89 19942 18358 16804 15250 19169.2 17583.1 16027 14470.9 18737.65 17150.5 15593.35 14030.25
Compressive 30 29 28 27 32 31 30 29 33 32 31 30
Strength
EI (strength/rate) 0.00150 0.00158 0.00167 0.00177 0.00167 0.00176 0.00187 0.00200 0.00176 0.00187 0.00199 0.00214

Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

cylinders specimens were cast and evaluated following the rigorous standards of ASTM-C39, providing insights into the structural
robustness of the concrete under varying conditions. Tensile strength, as per ASTM C496, was examined to gauge the material’s ca­
pacity to resist tension. Density, in accordance with ASTM C642-2, was accurately measured, offering insights into the concrete’s mass
and structural integrity. Acid resistance, evaluated using ASTM C1898-20, shed light on the material’s durability under harsh chemical
environments. Finally, the water absorption (Sorptivity) test, conducted following ASTM C1585-13, helped in understanding the
concrete’s ability to resist soaking up moisture, which is a vital consideration for its long-term durability. These standardized tests
collectively ensured that the research outcomes were based on sound scientific principles, enhancing the reliability and validity of the
study’s findings.

8. Cost benefit analysis

The rates for preparing the samples are showed in Table 5. We determined the price of all the separate materials employed in
making the concrete composites based on commercial prices. From both a mechanical and durability perspective, the F0-M15-R25
sample demonstrated the best performance. Notably, the economy index (a ratio of strength to cost) was highest for the F0-M15-
R75 sample, which contained 75% recycled concrete aggregate (RAC), when compared to the other mixtures. This finding suggests
that the F0-M15-R75 sample is the most promising choice for further applications involving Metakaolin and RAC in cement-based
structures, whether for structural purposes or in commercial settings.

9. Conclusion

The present study provided the following conclusions.

1. Strength decreased with RA incorporation (25%, 50%, and 75%). At 28 days, 10% fly ash and 15% metakaolin with silica (25 kg/
m3) enhance strength by 3.13% and 4.1%, respectively.
2. Density of a concrete mix reduces as the proportion of RCA increases. The density is improved by adding fly ash and metakaolin.
3. RCA content is directly related to water absorption because old mortar bonded to RCA is porous. Mix (F0-M0-R75) had a maximum
water absorption of 6.3%.
4. Compared to the control combination, mixes of 10% fly ash, 15% metakaolin, and 25% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) resist
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) best. F0-M0-R50 lost 30% strength in hydrochloric acid (HCl) and 41% in
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) after three months.
5. The sorptivity experiments confirmed that recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) increases porosity. The mixture with 75% RCA had
the most porosity. Adding 10% fly ash decreased porosity by 10%, whereas adding 15% metakaolin decreased it by 11%.
6. The economy index (a ratio of strength to cost) for 15% metakaolin is found to be the lowest along with 25% RCA (F0-M15-R25).

Ethical approval

All authors approve that the research was performed under all the ethical norms.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Consent to publish

All authors consent to publishing this paper.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Mohammed Alamri: Methodology, Conceptualization. Tariq Ali: Analysis, Data Curation. Hawreen Ahmed: Resources, Visu­
alization. Muhammad Zeeshan Qureshi: Methodology. Asad Elmagarhe: Conceptualization. Muhammad Adil Khan: Data cura­
tion. Ali Ajwad: Project administration. Muhammad Sarmad Mahmood: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper. No conflicts exist among authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R485), King Saud University, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia.

14
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

References

[1] K. Rao, K. Keerthi, S. V.-C. studies in construction materials, and undefined, Acid Resistance of Quaternary Blended Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2018.
[2] W. Chen et al., “Adopting Recycled Aggregates as Sustainable Construction Materials: A Review of the Scientific Literature.
[3] N. Kisku, H. Joshi, M. Ansari, S. Panda, S. N.-… and building materials, and undefined, A Critical Review and Assessment for Usage of Recycled Aggregate as
Sustainable Construction Material, 2017.
[4] T. Xie, A. Gholampour, T. O.-J. of M. in Civil, and undefined, Toward the development of sustainable concretes with recycled concrete aggregates:
comprehensive review of studies on mechanical properties, [Link] Xie, A Gholampour, T OzbakkalogluJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
2018•[Link] 30 (9) (2018), [Link] Sep. 2018.
[5] Younis K., S. M.-A. in M. S., and undefined Feasibility of using nanoparticles of SiO2 to improve the performance of recycled aggregate concrete 2018 (( 2018),
[Link]
[6] Younis K., C K.P., B. Materials, and undefined Strength prediction model and methods for improving recycled aggregate concrete 49 (2013) 688–701, https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2013.09.003.
[7] V. Tam, C. Tam, K. L.- Resources, C. and Recycling, and undefined, Removal of Cement Mortar Remains from Recycled Aggregate Using Pre-soaking Approaches,
2007.
[8] K. Younis, K. P.-C. and B. Materials, and undefined, Strength Prediction Model and Methods for Improving Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2013.
[9] W. Chen et al., “Adopting Recycled Aggregates as Sustainable Construction Materials: A Review of the Scientific Literature.
[10] M. Gomes, J. De Brito, Structural concrete with incorporation of coarse recycled concrete and ceramic aggregates: durability performance, Materials and
Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 42 (5) (2009) 663–675, [Link] Jun.
[11] V. Tam, C. T.-W. M. & Research, Parameters for assessing recycled aggregate and their correlation, [Link] Tam, CM TamWaste Management
& Research, 2009•[Link] 27 (1) (2009) 52–58, [Link] and undefined 2009.
[12] W. Chen et al., “Adopting Recycled Aggregates as Sustainable Construction Materials: A Review of the Scientific Literature.
[13] K. Younis, S. M.-A. in M. S. and, and undefined, Feasibility of Using Nanoparticles of SiO2 to Improve the Performance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2018.
[14] S.M.S. Kazmi, M.J. Munir, Y.F. Wu, I. Patnaikuni, Y. Zhou, F. Xing, Influence of different treatment methods on the mechanical behavior of recycled aggregate
concrete: a comparative study, Cem. Concr. Compos. 104 (Nov) (2019), [Link]
[15] D. Xuan, B. Zhan, C. P.-C, C. Composites, and undefined, Durability of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Prepared with Carbonated Recycled Concrete Aggregates,
2017.
[16] H. Choi, H. Choi, M. Lim, M. Inoue, R. Kitagaki, T. Noguchi, Evaluation on the mechanical performance of low-quality recycled aggregate through interface
enhancement between cement matrix and coarse aggregate by surface modification Technology, Int J Concr Struct Mater 10 (1) (2016) 87–97, [Link]
10.1007/S40069-015-0124-5. Mar.
[17] R. Wang, N. Yu, Y. Li, Methods for improving the microstructure of recycled concrete aggregate: a review, Constr Build Mater 242 (May 2020), [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2020.118164.
[18] D. Xuan, B. Zhan, C. P.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Assessment of Mechanical Properties of Concrete Incorporating Carbonated Recycled Concrete
Aggregates, 2016.
[19] D. Kong, T. Lei, J. Zheng, C. Ma, J. J.-C. and building, and undefined, Effect and Mechanism of Surface-Coating Pozzalanics Materials Around Aggregate on
Properties and ITZ Microstructure of Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2010.
[20] L. Singh, S. Karade, S. B.-… and building materials, and undefined, Beneficial Role of Nanosilica in Cement Based Materials–A Review, 2013.
[21] A. R.-C. and building materials and undefined, Metakaolin as Cementitious Material: History, Scours, Production and Composition–A Comprehensive Overview,
2013.
[22] B. Sabir, S. Wild, J. B.-C. and concrete composites, and undefined, Metakaolin and Calcined Clays as Pozzolans for Concrete: a Review, 2001.
[23] M. Anjos, A. Camões, P. Campos, G. A.-J. of B., and undefined, Effect of High Volume Fly Ash and Metakaolin with and without Hydrated Lime on the Properties
of Self-Compacting Concrete, 2020.
[24] R. Muduli, B. M.-C. and B. materials, and undefined, “Performance Assessment of Concrete Incorporating Recycled Coarse Aggregates and Metakaolin: A
Systematic Approach, 2020.
[25] M. Boháč, M. Palou, R. Novotný, J. M.-… and B. Materials, and undefined, Investigation on Early Hydration of Ternary Portland Cement-Blast-Furnace
Slag–Metakaolin Blends, 2014.
[26] R. Siddique, J. K.-A. C. Science, and undefined, Influence of Metakaolin on the Properties of Mortar and Concrete, 2009.
[27] P. Duan, Z. Shui, W. Chen, C. S.-C. and B. Materials, and undefined, Effects of Metakaolin, Silica Fume and Slag on Pore Structure, Interfacial Transition Zone
and Compressive Strength of Concrete, 2013.
[28] R. Muduli, B. M.-C. And B. Materials, and Undefined 2020, “Performance Assessment of Concrete Incorporating Recycled Coarse Aggregates and Metakaolin: A
Systematic Approach.
[29] M. A.-P. in energy and combustion science and undefined, A Review on the Utilization of Fly Ash, 2010.
[30] G. Li, C. Zhou, W. Ahmad, K. Usanova, M. K.- Materials, and undefined, Fly Ash Application as Supplementary Cementitious Material: a Review, 2022.
[31] A. Uliasz-Bocheńczyk, E. M.-S. Reports, and undefined, The Potential of FBC Fly Ashes to Reduce CO2 Emissions, 2020.
[32] J. Paino, S. Perera, A. Alashwal, and M. Rodrigo, “Impact of Fly-Ash on Carbon Emissions in Different Concrete Grades.
[33] A. Dindi, D. Quang, L. Vega, E. N.-J. of C., and undefined, Applications of Fly Ash for CO2 Capture, Utilization, and Storage, 2019.
[34] R. Kurad, J. Silvestre, J. de Brito, H. A.-J. of C. Production, and undefined, Effect of Incorporation of High Volume of Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash
on the Strength and Global Warming Potential of Concrete, 2017.
[35] M. Limbachiya, M. Meddah, Y. O.-C. and building, and undefined, Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Fly-Ash Concrete, 2012.
[36] R. Kurda, J. de Brito, J. S.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Water Absorption and Electrical Resistivity of Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregates and
Fly Ash, 2019.
[37] A. Verma, V.S. Babu, A. Srinivasan, Strength and durability properties of treated recycled aggregate concrete by soaking and mechanical grinding method:
influence of processing technique, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (10) (2021), [Link] Oct.
[38] A. Verma, B. Velaga, S. A.-E. J. of, and undefined 2023, Performance evaluation of concrete using treated recycled aggregates modified with mineral admixtures:
influence of processing, Taylor & FrancisA Verma, BS Velaga, S ArunachalamEuropean Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2023•Taylor & Francis
27 (3) (2023) 1010–1039, [Link]
[39] A. Verma, V.S. Babu, S. Arunachalam, Influence of acetic acid soaking and mechanical grinding treatment on the properties of treated recycled aggregate
concrete, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 24 (3) (May 2022) 877–899, [Link]
[40] P. Mehta, O. G.-C. and C. research, and undefined, Properties of Portland Cement Concrete Containing Fly Ash and Condensed Silica-Fume, 1982.
[41] C. Ozyildirim, W. H.-F. and E. Abstracts, and undefined, Improved Concrete Quality with Combinations of Fly Ash and Silica Fume, 1995.
[42] A. Padavala, M. Potharaju, V. K.-M. T. Proceedings, and undefined, Mechanical Properties of Ternary Blended Mix Concrete of Fly Ash and Silica Fume, 2021.
[43] R. Muduli, B. M.-J. of cleaner production, and undefined, Effect of Incorporation of Metakaolin and Recycled Coarse Aggregate on Properties of Concrete, 2019.
[44] M. Beltrán, F. Agrela, A. Barbudo, J. A.-… and B. Materials, and undefined, Mechanical and Durability Properties of Concretes Manufactured with Biomass
Bottom Ash and Recycled Coarse Aggregates, 2014.
[45] F. Rodrigues, M. Carvalho, L. E.-J. of cleaner, and undefined, Physical–chemical and Mineralogical Characterization of Fine Aggregates from Construction and
Demolition Waste Recycling Plants, 2013.
[46] F. Debieb, L. Courard, S. Kenai, R. D.-C. and Concrete, and undefined, Mechanical and Durability Properties of Concrete Using Contaminated Recycled
Aggregates, 2010.

15
M. Alamri et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e29014

[47] A. Gonzalez-Corominas, M. E.-C. and building materials, and undefined, “Properties of High Performance Concrete Made with Recycled Fine Ceramic and
Coarse Mixed Aggregates, 2014.
[48] M. Beltrán, F. Agrela, A. Barbudo, J. A.-… and B. Materials, and undefined, Mechanical and Durability Properties of Concretes Manufactured with Biomass
Bottom Ash and Recycled Coarse Aggregates, 2014.
[49] R. Kurad, J. Silvestre, J. de Brito, H. A.-J. of C. Production, and undefined, Effect of Incorporation of High Volume of Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash
on the Strength and Global Warming Potential of Concrete, 2017.
[50] R. Kurda, J. de Brito, J. S.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Water Absorption and Electrical Resistivity of Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregates and
Fly Ash, 2019.
[51] S. Kou, C. Poon, M. E.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Influence of Recycled Aggregates on Long Term Mechanical Properties and Pore Size Distribution of
Concrete, 2011.
[52] Kang, T. H.-K., Kim, W., Kwak, Y.-K., & Hong, S.-G.... - Google Scholar.
[53] Y. Hefni, Y.A. El Zaher, M. W.-C. and B. Materials, and undefined, Influence of Activation of Fly Ash on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete, 2018.
[54] R. Muduli, B. M.-J. of cleaner production, and undefined, Effect of Incorporation of Metakaolin and Recycled Coarse Aggregate on Properties of Concrete, 2019.
[55] S. Kou, C. Poon, F. A.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Comparisons of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Concretes Prepared with the Addition of Different
Mineral Admixtures, 2011.
[56] Green recycled aggregate concrete,” Elsevier, Accessed: October. 07, 2023.
[57] S. Saha, C. R.-A. in concrete construction, and undefined, “Mechanical Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Produced with Portland Pozzolana Cement,
2016.
[58] S. Tabsh, A. A.-C. and building materials, and undefined, Influence of Recycled Concrete Aggregates on Strength Properties of Concrete, 2009.
[59] M. Limbachiya, M. Meddah, Y. O.-C. and building, and undefined, Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Fly-Ash Concrete, 2012.
[60] S. Kou, C. Poon, F. A.-C. and C. Composites, and undefined, Comparisons of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Concretes Prepared with the Addition of Different
Mineral Admixtures, 2011.
[61] V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, S. M.-… and B. materials, Green Recycled Aggregate Concrete, 2013 and undefined.
[62] N. Singh, S. S.-C. and B. Materials, and undefined, “Carbonation and Electrical Resistance of Self-Compacting Concrete Made with Recycled Concrete Aggregates
and Metakaolin, 2016.
[63] S. Hadigheh, R. Gravina, S. S.-C. and building materials, and undefined, Effect of Acid Attack on FRP-To-Concrete Bonded Interfaces, 2017.

16