Parametric Analysis of Sustainable Concrete Incorporating Agricultural Waste and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)

Abstract

The rapid increase in construction and demolition activities has led to excessive generation of concrete waste, creating major environmental and disposal challenges. A sustainable way to reduce landfill usage and preserve natural resources is to recycle demolished construction debris (DCW) as a partial substitute for natural coarse aggregate. This study uses crushed concrete waste to examine the durability and mechanical qualities of RAC (recycled aggregate concrete with different replacement amounts of the coarse material (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80%). Compressive power and ability to absorb water for 7, 14, and 28, days of cure were measured in the lab. The findings show that up to 40% replacement, compressive strength stays within acceptable structural bounds but marginally declines with increasing replacement levels. Because recycled aggregates are porous, water absorption somewhat increases. Overall, the study demonstrates that partial utilization of demolished concrete waste is feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally beneficial for sustainable construction.

Introduction

The growing demand for construction materials is rapidly depleting natural aggregates while increasing Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste, primarily concrete. Disposing of crushed concrete waste creates environmental issues, prompting interest in recycling it as Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) for new concrete. RCA typically shows higher water absorption and lower density due to attached mortar, affecting workability and durability. However, studies show that with proper processing and mix design, up to 40% RCA can be used without compromising compressive strength.

The study aims to evaluate concrete containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% RCA, focusing on compressive strength (7, 14, 28 days) and water absorption as key durability indicators. The goal is to find the optimum replacement level that balances strength, durability, and sustainability while reducing natural resource depletion and landfill waste.

Problem Identification

• High CO? emissions from cement production.

• Overuse of natural aggregates causing ecological imbalance.

• Underutilization of wastes like coconut husk, glass powder, GGBFS.

• Workability issues when adding coconut fibre.

• Lack of integrated frameworks combining multiple waste materials.

Scope of the Study

• Evaluate mechanical and durability properties of RAC.

• Compare conventional and recycled aggregate concrete.

• Determine optimal RCA percentage.

• Assess environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness.

• Provide guidance for sustainable construction practices.

Literature Review Summary

Studies on glass powder, coconut shells, GGBFS, and other wastes indicate:

• Glass powder (5–20%) improves long-term strength and durability due to pozzolanic action.

• Coconut shells (≤20%) produce lightweight concrete with acceptable strength.

• GGBFS (20–50%) significantly improves long-term durability, reduces CO? emissions.

• Combining wastes can enhance performance but requires optimized mix design.

Overall, literature supports the sustainable use of recycled aggregates and waste materials, but highlights gaps in long-term durability studies, workability optimization, and codal guidelines.

Research Gaps Identified

1. Limited studies on combined waste materials.

2. Insufficient durability-focused research.

3. Lack of optimized mixes balancing strength, durability, and workability.

4. Few comparisons involving flexural, tensile, and microscopic behavior.

5. No clear Indian standard guidelines for such materials.

Research Methodology (Proposed System)

• Prepare mix using cement, aggregates, fly ash, fibres, and coir.

• Mix, place, compact, cure, and test concrete cubes.

• Conduct compressive strength tests at 7, 14, 28 days.

• Perform water absorption tests to assess porosity/durability.

Materials Used

• OPC 53, GGBFS (20–30%), waste glass powder (5–10%), coconut shell aggregate (10–30%), coconut fibre (0.5–2%), water and superplasticizers.

Design Components & Durability Observations

Water Absorption

• Coconut fibre up to 2% reduces water absorption by increasing density and reducing cracking.

• Higher fibre content increases porosity → higher absorption.

Carbonation Depth

• Up to 2% coconut fibre reduces carbonation depth (up to 48%).

• Excess fibre (3%) increases porosity, reducing resistance to carbonation.

Permeability

• Fibre addition increases permeability due to pore formation around fibres.

• Fibre shrinkage and porous structure create interconnected voids.

Conclusion

The investigation of concrete using agricultural waste and ground-granulated blast furnace slag, also known as, such as coconut shell aggregates and glass powder, presents a sustainable and cost-effective alternative to conventional concrete. The experimental analysis highlights that GGBFS enhances strength and durability due to its pozzolanic reaction, while coconut shell aggregates reduce density, making the concrete lightweight. Additionally, glass powder contributes to improved mechanical properties and durability. By replacing traditional materials with industrial and agricultural waste, this research promotes eco-friendly construction while addressing waste disposal challenges. An efficient balance between durability, workability, and sustainability is provided by the optimum mix design. The results indicate that with proper proportioning, this modified concrete can be used in various structural applications, including residential buildings, pavements, and precast elements. To further confirm its usefulness in contemporary building, further research should concentrate on durability over time and large-scale deployment.

References

[2] M. Khan and S. Ali, “Mechanical Properties of Coconut Shell Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024. [3] N. Gupta and P. Yadav, “Utilization of Industrial, Agricultural, and Construction Waste in Concrete and Mortar,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2025. [4] F. Silva and M. Rodrigues, “Influence of Waste Glass Powder as a Supplementary Cementitious Material,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. [5] A. Rajan and B. Joseph, “Durability Properties of Coconut Shell Aggregate Concrete,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2024. [6] Y. Zhang and H. Liu, “Evaluating the Long-Term Strength of GGBFS-Blended Cement,” PLOS ONE, 2025. [7] P. Mehta and R. Srinivasan, “Incorporation of Waste Glass Powder in Sustainable Concrete,” Materials (MDPI), 2025. [8] V. Singh and S. Banerjee, “Performance of Concrete Blended with Agricultural and Industrial Waste,” Scientific Reports (Nature), 2025. [9] M. Ahmed and I. Farooq, “Effect of GGBFS in Coconut-Shell Concrete,” E3S Web of Conferences, 2025. [10] J. Thomas and R. Varghese, “Application of Waste Glass Powder for Sustainable Concrete,” Materials (MDPI), 2025. [11] Deshmukh S.H,Bhusari J.P,Zende A.M, ????Effect, of glass fibres on ordinary portand cement concrete????, IOSR Journal of Engineering, June 2012. [12] Duna Samson, Omoniyi Tope Moses Investigating the Pozzolanic Potentials of Cowdung Ash in Cement Paste and Mortars????Civil and Environmental Research, ISSN 2224-5790, Vol.6, No.8, 2014. [13] Jitender Kumar Dhaka, Surendra Roy utilization of fly ash and cow dung ash as partial replacement of cement in concrete, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, vol.6, 2015. [14] Ojedokun, O. Y., Adeniran, A. A., Raheem, S. B. and Aderinto, S. J. Cow dung ash as partial replacement of cementing material in the production of concrete, British Journal of Applied Science & Technology,vol.4(24), pp 3445-3454,2014. [15] Omoniyi, T., Duna, S. and Mohammed, A., Compressive strength characteristic of cow dung ash blended cement concrete???? International Journal of Scientific &Engineering Research,vol.5, pp 770- 776,2014. [16] Rayaprolu, V. S. R. P. K. and Raju, P. P, Incorporation of cow dung ash to mortar and concrete, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol.2, pp. 580-585, 2012.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Shrikant Solanke, Vivek Vishwakarma, Vishal Sonkusare, Shashank Larokar, Komal Yawalkar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.