Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Durability and microstructure of eco-efficient

ultra-high-performance concrete
Ahmed M. Tahwia a, Gamal M. Elgendy b, *, Mohamed Amin c
a
Dep. of Structural Eng., Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
b
Master of Science, Dep. of Structural Eng., Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
c
Dep. of Civil and Architectural Constructions, Faculty of Technology and Education, Suez University, Egypt

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

Keywords: The sustainability of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) could be enhanced by using by-product materials
By-product materials with high replacement percentages. This research aims to study the effect of using blast furnace cement (CEM
Compressive strength III), fly ash (FA), and granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) as partial replacements to cement in UHPC. CEM III
Modulus of elasticity
with percentages of 30%, 50%, and 100%; FA and GBFS with percentages of 30% and 50% were used as re­
Sustainability
Ultra-high-performance concrete
placements from ordinary Portland cement (OPC) weight. Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity tests
Sulfate attack were conducted to evaluate the results of UHPC specimens. The effect of sulfate attack was studied at concen­
Chloride penetration trations of 5, 50, and 75 g/l, at 28, 90, and 180 days, for each concentration individually. Chloride penetration
Colorimetric method was also studied through the colorimetric method using the AgNO3 solution. The development of UHPC
Microstructure microstructural properties was studied via SEM and EDX analysis. Results showed that concrete with high cement
replacement of FA up to 50% percentage had better results in compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
reached to 160.9 MPa, and 51.64 GPa respectively. Concrete can still achieve ultra-high-performance of 157.4
MPa with FA replacement of up to 50% for a long period and a high concentration of sulfate attack. However, for
CEM III or GBFS, attack period, sulfate concentration, or replacement percentage must be lowered to preserve the
concrete still achieving ultra-high-performance. SEM images and EDX analysis for the enhanced UHPC structure
show the high dense microstructure and so small ITZ thickness, and strengthened the results obtained from the
conducted permeability and compressive strength tests.

1. Introduction
The term sustainability has recently received increasing concerns
from those concerned with environmental affairs because of its wide
impact on preserving natural resources for future generations and
working to provide suitable alternatives to these resources [1,2]. Sus­
tainable constructions often have a safe impact on the environment by
preserving natural resources while obtaining all the required quality
conditions, therefore, recycled or recyclable materials are used [3,4].
Naik [5], described recycled materials as “green materials,” which are
characterized by less energy consumption, and contribute to the pro­
duction of high-performance, environmentally friendly cement and
concrete. Tahwia et al. [6] and Isa et al. [7], considered sustainable
ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) one of the ideal solutions to
improve the sustainability of constructions because of its exclusive
properties to withstand and resist the conditions of violent and harsh
environments. Abbas et al. [8] studied the micro and macro properties of
the UHPC mixture components which could be improved to reach the
maximum possible density, partially or fully replacing its valuable,
scarce, or unavailable traditional components with more sustainable
materials. Azmee, and Shafiq [9], stated that, the UHPC with its fresh
and hardened properties is a combination of three concrete technolo­
gies, namely, self-compaction, fiber-reinforced, and high-strength con­
crete. The UHPC produces concrete with a compressive, flexural, and
tensile strength of not less than 150, 30, and 5 MPa, respectively [10].
UHPC is considered a highly durable material due to its ultra-high
strength relative to its unit weight, lowest possible degree of water
permeability, and dense microstructure, thereby having a good fire
resistance and non-explosive spalling at high temperatures [11,12].
Several research studies have dealt with the composition of UHPC,
where it is stated that the UHPC concrete is produced by using a very
high cement content, which reaches 1000 kg/m3, fine sand with

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: atahwia@mans.edu.eg (A.M. Tahwia), gymy216@yahoo.com (G.M. Elgendy), h_scc@yahoo.com (M. Amin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124491
Received 25 May 2021; Received in revised form 23 July 2021; Accepted 5 August 2021
Available online 16 August 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Tahwia et al.
granular diameter not exceeding 500–600 µm, and silica fume (SF) as a
percentage of the cement weight [9,13]. Richard and Cheyrezy [14]
recorded a very low percentages of water used for UHPC mixtures that
can reach 0.08. The optimal ratio of water/cement (w/c) ratio ranges
from 0.2 to 0.13, the hydration occurs for a part of the amount of cement
used with all added water, while the rest of the amount of cement that
has not hydrated can be replaced by quartz powder and other materials
that have pozzolanic properties [8]. Such properties combine the
products of cement hydration to produce other compounds with high
resistance, which penetrate the interstitial pores among sand, quartz,
and cement [15,16]. Some recyclable wastes and by-product materials
can be considered a kind of solid wastes with pozzolanic characteristics
[17,18]. These are regarded as supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs) that can be significantly used in UHPC mixes [19,20]. SCMs play
an important role in improving the properties of UHPC concrete because
each of these materials has one or more advantages when mixed with
cement [21,22]. By using these materials with chemical additives, a
large part of the usual Portland cement can be provided or replaced
completely in some cases, supporting the basic meaning of sustainability
[23,24]. Increasing the cement content in UHPC mixtures is one of the
factors that lead to limiting the popularity of this type of concrete
[25,26]. Meng et al. [27], used mixtures prepared with a high volume of
SCMs, thereby reducing the resulting hydration temperature, a very
dense microstructure, and high carbonation resistance, as well as
lowering the unit cost per compressive strength. Madhavi et al. [28],
studied high replacement percentages of fly ash (FA) powder as an
alternative to cement up to 60%, and obtained high stresses and
distinctive performance properties in long-term ages and not in early
ages. Thus, using FA in warm climates is feasible when high stresses are
not required at early stages. UHPC concrete can be called reactive
powder concrete, where the term reactive powder expresses the chem­
ical reaction of the components of this concrete together, whereby the
cement is hydrated by water to produce CaOH2. Moreover, a pozzolanic
reaction between CaOH2 and SF or other SCMs took place to produce
calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H) gel. The quartz sand supplies dissolved
silica to produce more C-S-H gel, and in the case of hot steam treatment,
the quartz powder contributes to promoting the formation of xonolite
and tobermorite [29,30]. One of the factors that lead to reducing the
content of the binder amount is to reach the optimum gradation of the
used sand, thereby reducing the interstitial spaces to a minimum extent
[27]. In general, as a heterogeneous material, concrete at the area
around the aggregate starts to collapse, which are called interfacial
transition zones (ITZs). These areas are weak and susceptible to crack
and increase in thickness with the increase of aggregate sizes [31,32].
These ITZs are also the weakest place in the concrete body and act as a
gap around the aggregate grains in which oriented CaOH2 + ettringite
crystals, which are weak materials, are collected, leading to the sepa­
ration of aggregate grains from the cement mortar [33,34]. When the
coarse aggregate is canceled, and the size of the used aggregate is
reduced to 45–600 µm, ITZs are reduced or perhaps eliminated,
explaining the porosity of UHPC lower than other conventional con­
cretes [8]. Andrade and Torres [25] studied the long term carbonation of
UHPC and clarified that it is one of the main reasons for the deteriora­
tion of the condition of concrete over time and the consequent corrosion
of steel reinforcement or steel fibers inside the concrete. Andrade and
Torres also explained how carbonation occurs in concrete, carbon di­
oxide (CO2) in the atmosphere combines with the calcium hydroxide
CaOH2, produced by hydration of cement with water, to produce cal­
cium carbonate CaCO3. When this reaction occurs, the pH number de­
creases from 12 to 13 to approximately 7. This case increases the acidity
of the concrete around the steel, and the protective layer around the
steel begins to collapse, the electrical conductivity increases, and rust
begins. For UHPC and by replacing a part of the high quantity of cement
with the SCMs, the production of CaOH2 is reduced by reducing the
cement content and w/c ratio. Moreover, pozzolanic reactions consume
CaOH2, and the ultra-fine-grained SF increases the condensation of the
2
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
concrete, leading to reduced concrete permeability and not allowing
CO2 to penetrate through its structure [35,36]. Although UHPC concrete
reaches ultra-high resistances, this concrete is still a brittle material at
high and impact loads. Therefore, steel fibers must be used to provide
this concrete the required and suitable ductility to withstand various
types of loads. Steel reinforcement can be used with UHPC as a com­
posite section, which contributes to reducing the concrete sections and
the amount of steel used to save the total costs [10,30]. Aguirre-
Guerrero et al. [37] dealt with UHPC which exposed to chlorides and
show that the high density and low voids in the UHPC concrete structure
lead to high resistance to penetration of chlorides and consequently
provide high resistance to steel reinforcement corrosion. The quality of
cement affects the ability of concrete to resist chlorides penetration,
Javier et al. [38], also Givi et al. [39], studied the contribution of rice
husk ash and other by-products with cement to resist chlorides pene­
tration. Detwiler et al. [40], as well as Huizhen, and Peiyu [41] inves­
tigated the blended cement which by-product materials incorporated
during its manufacturing and stated that blended cements might be used
to reduce the voids in UHPC concrete. In [42], threetypes of cement are
used, namely, blast furnace cement CEM III/A, sulfate resistant cement
SRC, and ordinary Portland cement (OPC) mixed with FA. A rapid
chloride penetration test is carried out using the standard ASTM C1202
[43], and the results show the resistance of blast furnace cement con­
crete to chloride penetration over the concrete of the other two types of
cement [42]. The chloride penetration test for concrete is considered
one of the most important durability tests to determine the depth of
penetration of chlorides into concrete [44]. Some methods require
special equipment, expensive materials, and a long time to complete, as
studied by Ahmad et al [45]. From other researches, the colorimetric
method, which is an easy and fast method, can be used. Although studies
determining the depth of chloride penetration using this method are
limited, previous studies revealed three colorimetric methods that rely
mainly on the use of silver nitrate salt (AgNO3) [46]. A solution of silver
nitrate with a concentration of 0.1 mol/l is sprayed on the inner surface
of the concrete, and results show a difference between the color of the
concrete containing chlorides and the chloride-free concrete [47,48]. By
adding the potassium chromate solution (K2CrO4) to the silver nitrate
solution (AgNO3) and spraying them together, the color of the concrete
containing chlorides may be distinguished more easily than the previous
method [49,50]. If the fluorescein solution is added to the silver nitrate
solution, then spraying this combined solution provides better and
deeper results than the previous two methods [51]. When the UHPC is
exposed to the attack of chemicals with sulfate salts, the estimation of
the effect of this attack is based on the decrease in the compressive
strength compared with the samples that are not exposed to the sulfate
attack, and the percentage of this decrease could be calculated; as
clarified by Ahmad et al. [45]. Menéndez, and Baroghel-Bouny [52],
measure the concrete’s ability to withstand sulfate attack in the long-
term by immersing the concrete samples in the sulfate environment
for 6–18 months, after which the necessary tests are carried out, from
which, expansion and loss of mass in addition to the compressive
strength. The use of cement replacement materials, such as FA, GBFS,
and others, has an effect on the concrete’s resistance to sulfate attacks,
depending on the chemical composition, and the replacement percent­
age of each material used [52,53]. This finding can be clarified by
analyzing the microstructure of concrete through scanning electron
microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), and X-ray
diffraction (XRD) to demonstrate the nature of the caused damages and
comparing this with the results of the compressive strength for each
sample [52].
2. Research significance
This study mainly aims to produce eco-efficient UHPC mixes incor­
porating by-product materials, and the originality of this study lies in
establishing the durability properties and microstructure study of UHPC.
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

The importance of this study is to clarify the possibility of eco-efficient
development for UHPC when using different reactive powder environ­
mentally friendly materials as a percentage of the used cement. Blast
furnace cement (CEM III) was incorporated as a partial or full replace­
ment of OPC to ensure a relatively high extent of improving the sus­
tainability of UHPC. FA and GBFS were incorporated to an extent of half
cement quantity. SF and quartz powder were added up to 25% and 30%
from the total weight of the used cement, respectively. All of the above
was studied to prove the suitability of using sustainable UHPC when
exposed or used in environments containing sulfate or chloride com­
pounds. Another objective is to clarify the change in UHPC durability as
a result of sulfate attack in its different concentrations and at different
applying periods also to compare the use of the better sustainable ma­
terial type and its optimum replacement percentage.
3. Experimental investigation
polycarboxylate-based HRWR superplasticizer (Viscocrete-3425 with a
dosage of 2% by mass of the cementitious materials) with a solid mass
content of 23% and a specific gravity of 1.05 was used to improve the
flowability of UHPC. Viscocrete-3425 is specifically suitable for the
production of concrete mixtures that require high early mechanical
strength development, strong water reduction, and high fluidity. Vis­
cocrete3425 complies with the requirements of ASTM C494/C494M-17
[60]. The water/binder (w/b) ratio was fixed at 0.19. The fine aggregate
utilized in this study was natural sand, which was tested in line with the
specifications of ASTM C33/C33-18 [61]. The used natural sand has a
grain size of 0.15–0.6 mm, specific gravity of 2.64, bulk density of 1.78
t/m3, and water absorption of 0.8%. No coarse aggregate was employed.
Environments of sodium sulfate Na2SO4 solution with concentrations of
5 g/l (0.5%), 50 g/l (5%), and 75 g/l (7.5%) and sodium chloride NaCl
solution at a concentration of 3% were used to introduce the possibilities
of the sulfate attack and chloride penetration, respectively.

3.1. Raw materials and mixture design 3.2. Preparation of concrete mixtures and mixing procedure

In this experimental investigation, UHPC mixtures were produced
with three kinds of cement, namely, OPC CEM I 42.5N, CEM I 52.5N, and
blast furnace cement (CEM III/A 42.5N), which contain 50% blast
furnace slag, in accordance with BS EN 197-1/2011 [54]. The mixtures
were used to prepare concrete test specimens. The Blaine fineness values
of CEM I 42.5N, CEM I 52.5N, and CEM III/A 42.5N were 339, 398, and
331 m2/kg, respectively. Table 1 presents the chemical and physical
properties of the cement types. The SCMs were SF, class C FA, and
granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) which may be also referred to as
(slag cement) in some papers like [55] and [56], which obtained from
Helwan iron and steel factory. FA and blast furnace cement were added
as a partial replacement at percentages of 0%, 30%, and 50% of OPC
weight, and SF was added at percentages of 15%, 20%, and 25% of
cement weight. The content of the cementitious materials, which
included cement, FA, GBFS, and SF, was approximately 1000 kg/m3. SF
had a mean diameter of 0.15 μm, bulk density of 0.345 t/m3, a specific
gravity of 2.15, SiO2 content of 97.8%, and specific surface area of
19,800 m2/kg, which were determined through the Bru­
nauer–Emmett–Teller method [27,57]. FA and GBFS had specific grav­
ities of 2.26 and 2.73, and their Blaine surface areas were 612 and 558
m2/kg, respectively. The used SF and FA are highly siliceous materials
that conform to the key requirements specified in ASTM C1240-14 [58]
and ASTM C618-12a [59], respectively. Quartz powders with very fine
particles ranging from 0.1 to 50 µm, Blaine fineness of 305 m2/kg, and
specific gravity of 2.61 were used. Table 1 shows the characteristics of
the investigated binder materials. Steel fibers (Sf) with 0.2 mm thickness
and 12 mm length were used at 2% of the volume of UHPC. A
A total of 25 UHPC mixtures were prepared in accordance with the
mixing proportions shown in Table 2. Five basic concrete groups were
created based on the cement type and grade, and SF content. Mixing was
done using a vertical shaft mixer or pan pot mixer for mixing UHPC
materials in order to achieve the best material qualities. First, quartz
powder, silica fume and the natural sand were added into the mixer and
were dry mixed for approximately 5 min at 136 rpm. The SCMs and
cement were then added into the pan and mixed for an additional 5 min
at 136 rpm. After this, the collection of water and HRWR super­
plasticizer was gradually dispensed into the pan while the mixer was
spinning. The blend was allowed to mix for approximately 1–2 more min
at 136 rpm. Then the mixing speed was increased to 281 rpm for
approximately 5 min, or until the concrete reached an acceptable con­
sistency. Once an adequate mixture consistency was achieved, the high
strength steel fibers were added into the mixer and allowed to mix at
136 rpm until the fibers were sufficiently dispersed.
Ultra-high-performance concrete mixes were designed using the
absolute volume method, where the quantities of materials and their
specific weights were first imposed, and then the amount of sand needed
for the mixture is deduced from the absolute volume equation with the
knowledge of its specific weight. It is known that for UHPC which is also
called reactive powder concrete, the amount of the fine materials is
relatively high if compared to the amount of sand [29]. Quartz powder
plays another role in the mixture, which is to complete the particle-size
distribution of the sand, in order to compensate for the lack of sand in
the mixture [29,30]. The increase of fine materials in the UHPC mixes
may significantly affect the autogenously shrinkage of hardened UHPC

Table 1
Chemical composition and physical characteristics of used materials.
Chemical component CEM I 42.5N CEM I 52.5N CEM III/A SF FA GBFS Quartz

CaO 62.32 63.02 51.99 0.27 6.31 40.51 0.02

SiO2 20.28 20.05 28.51 97.80 50.14 38.58 98.85
Al2O3 5.75 4.26 7.37 0.34 18.12 12.17 0.08
Fe2O3 3.17 2.83 2.3 0.17 7.34 0.93 0.05
SO3 2.87 3.15 2.35 – 2.87 3.14
Na2O 0.68 0.38 0.5 0.23 1.11 0.46 –
K2O 0.89 1.24 0.34 0.15 2.19 0.51 –
MgO 2.82 3.80 4.89 0.21 1.56 9.57 –
MgCO3 – – – – – – 0.04
P2O5 – – – – 0.42 – –
MnO – – – – 0.08 – –
TiO2 – – – – 0.85 – –
Chloride (Cl) – – 0.02 – – – –
Insoluble Residue (IR) – – 0.75 – – – –
Loss of ignition (%) 2.3 2.3 1.08 2.0 0.29 – –
Blaine surface area (m2/kg) 339 398 331 – 612 558 305
B.E.T. (m2/kg) –– –– – 19,800 – – –
Specific gravity 3.15 3.14 3.16 2.15 2.26 2.73 2.61

3
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

Table 2
Mix proportions of concrete mixes (kg/m3).
Group Mix CEM I CEM III SF Sand QP FA GBFS Sf SP W

CEM I 42.5 15% SF UHP 1.1 1000 0 150 618.4 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 1.2 700 300 150 605.8 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 1.3 500 500 150 597.4 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
CEM I 52.5 15% SF UHP 2.1 1000 0 150 618.4 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.2 700 300 150 605.8 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.3 500 500 150 597.4 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.4 700 0 150 565.0 300. 300 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.5 500 0 150 529.4 300 500 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.6 700 0 150 570.8 300 0 300 157 23 218.5
UHP 2.7 500 0 150 539.1 300 0 500 157 23 218.5
CEM III 42.5 15% SF UHP 3.1 0 1000 150 576.4 300 0 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 3.2 0 700 150 535.6 300 300 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 3.3 0 500 150 508.4 300 500 0 157 23 218.5
UHP 3.4 0 700 150 541.4 300 0 300 157 23 218.5
UHP 3.5 0 500 150 518.0 300 0 500 157 23 218.5
CEM III 42.5 20% SF UHP 4.1 0 1000 200 487.1 300 0 0 157 24 228
UHP 4.2 0 700 200 446.4 300 300 0 157 24 228
UHP 4.3 0 500 200 419.2 300 500 0 157 24 228
UHP 4.4 0 700 200 452.1 300 0 300 157 24 228
UHP 4.5 0 500 200 428.8 300 0 500 157 24 228
CEM III 42.5 25% SF UHP 5.1 0 1000 250 397.9 300 0 0 157 25 237.5
UHP 5.2 0 700 250 357.2 300 300 0 157 25 237.5
UHP 5.3 0 500 250 330.0 300 500 0 157 25 237.5
UHP 5.4 0 700 250 362.9 300 0 300 157 25 237.5
UHP 5.5 0 500 250 339.6 300 0 500 157 25 237.5

and can result in potential cracking [31,32]. This issue could be possibly
Table 3
overcome by the imperative of using steel fibers as a percentage of the
Compressive strength (MPa) and modulus of Elasticity (GPa).
volume of the mixture, which gives the resulting concrete the necessary
flexibility with an improvement in mechanical properties and durability Group Mix Average 28 days comp. 28 days static modulus of
strength (MPa)/SD* elasticity (GPa)
[10,30].
CEM I 42.5 UHP1.1 154.2/3.47 50.57
15% SF UHP1.2 142.8/3.65 47.33
3.3. Testing of fresh concrete; (Workability test) UHP1.3 135.8/3.82 45.98
CEM I 52.5 UHP2.1 163.4/3.57 52.15
In this work, the workability was the fresh properties of UHPC mixes. 15% SF UHP2.2 150.5/4.04 49.21
The slump flow was measured to determine the workability of mixes UHP2.3 142.9/3.38 47.40
UHP2.4 171.5/3.55 53.30
after mixing in accordance with ASTM C413 [62].
UHP2.5 160.9/3.64 51.64
UHP2.6 146.7/3.74 48.50
3.4. Testing of hardened concretes UHP2.7 136.8/3.98 46.28
CEM III 42.5 UHP3.1 135.9/3.65 46.00
15% SF UHP3.2 146.5/3.39 48.21
3.4.1. Compressive strength test UHP3.3 136.2/4.03 46.20
For the compressive strength test, three 7 × 7 × 7 cm cube specimens UHP3.4 123.6/3.87 44.20
were cast for each mixture. The concrete specimens were removed from UHP3.5 118.1/3.55 43.40
the molds after 24 h and were cured for 28 days. [63] Was referenced for CEM III 42.5 UHP4.1 142.8/3.65 47.50
20% SF UHP4.2 153.8/3.50 50.30
making and curing concrete test specimens in the laboratory.
UHP4.3 143.2/3.83 47.60
The test was performed using the universal testing machine (UTM) UHP4.4 131.4/3.46 45.50
until a fracture of the cube was attained, to obtain the average of the UHP4.5 123.8/3.84 44.30
three samples to be the average compressive strength after 28 days for CEM III 42.5 UHP5.1 150.1/3.74 49.10
each mixture as guided by BS EN, 12390-3 (2009) [64]. Table 3 presents 25% SF UHP5.2 161.1/3.78 51.55
UHP5.3 150.6/3.58 49.30
the compressive strength results for all mixes after 28 days. UHP5.4 137.8/3.56 46.80
UHP5.5 130.4/3.47 45.15
3.4.2. Test for static modulus of elasticity
* SD standard deviation of the samples.
The static modulus of elasticity (Ec) in compression was determined
according to ASTM C 469 (2014) [65]. UHPC cylindrical samples of 15
cm in diameter and 30 cm in height were prepared. The samples were unloading cycles. The stress–strain curves were plotted, and the slope of
immersed in freshwater for the standard curing period of 28 days with the last loading cycle was taken as a measure for the concrete modulus of
reference to ASTM C192/C192M [63]. After that, the sample was placed elasticity. Table 3 shows the 28 days modulus of elasticity values for all
in the device shown in Fig. 1 and was loaded in the universal testing mixes.
machine (UTM).
In this test, specimens were first loaded by (1.4 kg/cm2), and the load 3.4.3. Test for sulfate resistance
was gradually increased up to a stress of (X + 7), where X is one-third the Samples were prepared from UHPC for the mixes shown in Table 1
ultimate compressive strength. The incremental increase of loading was with dimensions of 7 × 7 × 7 cm which were submerged in solutions of
approximately 11.2 kg/cm2. The displacement (Δl) was recorded at each sodium sulfate Na2SO4 in the form of three concentrations, that is, low,
load increment by using a gauge, and the strain was then calculated as medium, and severe. These concentrations were, 5, 50, and 75 g/l,
Δl/L₀, where L₀ is the distance between the pivots of the apparatus as respectively, which were prepared in three containers, in addition to the
shown in Fig. 1. These steps were performed for three loading/ freshwater general tank.

4
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 1. Static modulus of elasticity in compression (Ec) (test-set up).
The compressive strength test was used as a guide and an indicator to
judge the effect of the sulfate attack on UHPC samples compared with
reference samples whose cubes were submerged in freshwater [45].
Tests were conducted at different ages, which were 28, 90, and 180 days,
to study the effect in the short, medium, and long periods of attack,
respectively. In addition to the freshwater concentration for each of the
three ages, three cubes for each of the three concentrations were used.
The number of cubes used for each mixture to study the sulfate attack
was 3 × 4 × 3 (i.e., three cubes for the four concentrations for the three
ages) with a total of 36 cubes per mixture. Table 4 shows the
compressive strength values for all mixes under sulfate attack concen­
trations of 0.0, 5.0, 50.0, and 75 g/l, for three attack periods of 28, 90,
and 180 days.
3.4.4. Chloride penetration test
UHPC cylindrical samples of 15 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height
were prepared. The samples were immersed in freshwater for the stan­
dard curing period of 28 days with reference to ASTM C192/C192M
[63] and were subsequently immersed in a 3% NaCl solution for another
28 days. After completion of treatment and exposure to the environment
of chlorides, cylindrical samples were taken out after these periods and
were split following the Brazilian tensile test to obtain two slits for each
sample. The chloride penetration test was carried out by applying the
colorimetric method using a solution of silver nitrate AgNO3 at a mo­
lecular weight of 0.1 mol/l. The solution was sprayed on the inner
surface of the slit of the cylindrical sample as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
a.
The penetration of chlorides was measured by observing the change
in the color of the concrete surface as a result of AgNO3 spraying, where
the white to gray color is an indication of the penetration of chlorides,
whereas the light brown color is an indication of the absence of chlorides
[46,51].
The principle of the silver nitrate colorimetric method is to form a
white precipitate through the reaction of silver ions (Ag+) and chloride
ions (Cl− ). If the colorimetric method is continuously applied to con­
crete structures subject to chloride ion penetration, then other precipi­
tation reactions will occur. That is, after calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)₂) is
generated owing to the hydration of cement, the hydroxide ions and
silver ions present in the voids undergo a brown precipitation reaction.
Fig. 2 shows the principle diagram of the colorimetric method, and Eqs.
(1) and (2) show the reaction equation of the colorimetric method [44].
5
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
Ag + + Cl − ⇒ AgCl (White reaction), (1)
Ag+ +OH− ⇒ AgOH (Brown reaction). (2)
The depth of chloride penetration was measured in millimeters using
an electronic digital caliper to two decimal places precision as shown in
Fig. 3b for three points on the edge of the split sample for both sides.
Thus, the measurements were six points for each sample as shown in
Fig. 3.c. The final measure of chloride penetration depth in millimeters
for each mixture was the average of the last six values as shown in
Table 5.
3.4.5. Water permeability test
The water permeability test was carried out on cylindrical specimens
of diameter 150 mm and 150 mm height. The test was determined ac­
cording to BS EN 12390-8: 2009 [66].
3.4.6. Tests for microstructure
After the strength test was performed, a sample for microstructure
analysis was cut from the fractured surface including the exposed sur­
face part (0–15 mm depth). Subsequently, the extracted samples were
vacuum dried at 50 ◦ C for 48 h, coated with gold, and finally examined
through SEM (TESCAN VEGA 3 LMH with an acceleration voltage of 20
kV) assisted with EDS. XRD (PANalytical Empyrean system using CuKa
radiation, operating at 60 kV and 55 mA) was performed on powder
samples from the extracted samples to identify the mineralogical
composition within the composites [53].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Workability
The slump flow had a value of 471 mm for control mix UHP2.1
without any cement replacement, as shown in Fig. 4. When 30% cement
was replaced by CEM III, FA, and GBFS, slump flow values became 480
mm, 457 mm, and 460 mm, respectively. That is, a slight improvement
in workability was recorded with 30% CEM III replacement, whereas for
FA or GBFS replacements, the workability was reduced. When the
replacement percentage was increased to 50% as shown in Fig. 4, the
values of slump flow for mixes with FA, and GBFS replacement
decreased to 445 mm and 449 respectively; while the value for CEM III
replacement increases to 488 mm. therefore increasing the cement
replacement percentage the workability increases when CEM III and
decreases for FA or GBFS replacements.
When blast furnace cement CEM III was used in concrete mix UHP3.1
instead of the OPC CEM I in concrete mix UHP1.1, the slump flow
increased from 491 mm to 512 mm, as shown in Fig. 4. This result in­
dicates that a 4.3% increase in workability occurred when CEM III was
used instead of CEM I. The effect of different contents of SF on UHPC
workability was investigated. Fig. 4 shows the values of slump flow for
the considered mixes. Relative to concrete mix UHP3.1 that contains
15% content of SF and CEM III cement without any replacement, a
reduced workability was observed for concrete mixes UHP3.2 and
UHP3.3 with replacement percentages of 30% and 50% FA, respectively
(from 512 mm for UHP3.1 to 498 mm and 486 mm for UHP3.2 and
UHP3.3, respectively) as shown in Fig. 4. When the SF content was
increased to 20% in mixes UHP4.2 and UHP4.3, workability was
decreased as the slump flow values decreased. When the SF content was
increased to 25%, the values of slump flow decreased from 512 mm for
UHP3.1 to 465 mm and 450 mm in mixes UHP5.2 and UHP5.3,
respectively i.e., another decrease in workability was observed relative
to control mix UHP3.1. With regard to GBFS replacement, as shown in
Fig. 4, when the SF content increased from 15% to 20% and then 25%,
reduced workability was also observed for concrete mixes UHP3.2 and
UHP3.3 with replacement percentages of 30% and 50% GBFS, respec­
tively. It should be noted that the workability of concrete upon
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

Table 4
Average compressive strength (MPa) after sulfate attack.
Group Mix 0.0 gm./liter (No attack) 5.0 gm./liter (Low attack) 50.0 gm./liter (Medium attack) 75.0 gm./liter (Severe attack)

28d/*SD 90d/*SD 180d/ 28d/*SD 90d/*SD 180d/ 28d/*SD 90d/*SD 180d/ 28d/SD* 90d/*SD 180d/
*SD *SD *SD SD*

CEM I 42.5 UHP1.1 154.2/ 170.9/ 175.6/ 155.1/ 170.7/ 174.4/ 156.5/ 160.6/ 160.7/ 157.3/ 155.9/ 146.6/
15% SF 3.47 3.30 4.01 3.63 3.73 3.99 3.33 4.60 2.69 3.21 3.30 3.78
UHP1.2 142.8/ 158.2/ 162.6/ 143.7/ 157.4/ 160.3/ 144.9/ 148.4/ 146.8/ 145.7/ 141.9/ 133.7/
3.65 3.82 3.38 2.89 4.22 3.22 3.65 4.09 2.88 3.84 3.81 3.46
UHP1.3 135.8/ 150.5/ 154.7/ 136.6/ 149.3/ 152.1/ 137.8/ 140.1/ 138.6/ 138.5/ 133.9/ 126.1/
3.82 3.65 4.20 3.64 4.35 3.99 4.07 4.35 3.69 4.11 3.03 3.56
CEM I 52.5 UHP2.1 163.4/ 184.5/ 190.3/ 164.4/ 184.5/ 189.7/ 165.9/ 177.1/ 176/ 166.7/ 169.7/ 160.8/
15% SF 3.57 3.47 3.38 3.73 3.36 2.78 4.07 3.13 3.47 4.01 2.63 3.9
UHP2.2 150.5/ 169.9/ 175.3/ 151.4/ 169.6/ 173.7/ 152.8/ 160.7/ 159.7/ 153.5/ 153.8/ 145.5/
4.04 4.01 3.76 3.61 3.51 4.44 4.17 3.54 4.12 3.53 3.9 3.73
UHP2.3 142.9/ 161.4/ 166.4/ 143.8/ 169.1/ 164.1/ 145/ 151.4/ 150.3/ 145.8/ 144.9/ 136.9/
3.38 4.39 3.73 3.41 3.47 3.30 4.25 4.10 3.25 3.98 3.38 3.61
UHP2.4 171.5/ 193.7/ 199.7/ 172.5/ 193.7/ 199.5/ 174.1/ 186.9/ 185.7/ 174.9/ 179.8/ 169.9/
3.55 3.05 4.16 3.16 4.34 3.44 3.78 3.30 2.79 4.11 3.12 3.53
UHP2.5 160.9/ 181.7/ 187.4/ 161.9/ 181.7/ 186.5/ 163.3/ 173.5/ 172.4/ 164.1/ 166.8/ 157.4/
3.64 3.52 3.54 3.58 3.63 3.14 3.35 3.13 4.08 4.01 3.03 3.86
UHP2.6 146.7/ 165.7/ 170.8/ 147.6/ 165.4/ 168.9/ 148.9/ 156.1/ 154.9/ 149.6/ 149.5/ 141.3/
3.74 2.95 4.17 3.67 3.65 3.75 3.21 3.46 3.24 4.18 4.13 3.12
UHP2.7 136.8/ 154.5/ 159.3/ 137.6/ 153.6/ 156.8/ 138.9/ 144.1/ 143.1/ 139.5/ 138/ 130.1/
3.98 4.17 3.13 4.42 3.80 3.97 3.92 3.53 3.65 3.46 4.42 4.29
CEM III42.5 UHP3.1 135.9/ 151/ 155.6/ 136.7/ 150.5/ 153.7/ 137.9/ 140.6/ 139.4/ 138.6/ 134.7/ 127/
15% SF 3.65 3.37 3.18 3.78 3.53 3.05 4.28 3.20 4.42 3.47 3.82 3.44
UHP3.2 146.5/ 162.8/ 167.7/ 147.4/ 162.5/ 165.9/ 148.7/ 153.2/ 151.9/ 149.4/ 146.7/ 138.5/
3.39 2.46 3.89 3.46 4.17 3.17 4.27 2.86 3.92 3.16 3.9 3.73
UHP3.3 136.2/ 151.3/ 155.9/ 137/ 150.2/ 153.2/ 138.2/ 141/ 139.8/ 138.9/ 135.1/ 127.4/
4.03 4.07 4.25 3.86 4.23 4.36 3.82 3.60 4.6 3.68 4.82 3.97
UHP3.4 123.6/ 137.3/ 141.5/ 124.3/ 135.4/ 138.1/ 125.5/ 126.2/ 125.1/ 126.1/ 120.5/ 113.6/
3.87 3.64 3.36 2.91 2.74 3.61 3.14 4.29 3.87 3.72 3.93 3.29
UHP3.5 118.1/ 131.2/ 135.2/ 118.8/ 129.2/ 131.8/ 119.9/ 120/ 119/ 120.5/ 114.8/ 108.2/
3.55 3.27 4.26 4.61 4.04 4.16 3.66 4.93 3.30 4.42 3.08 4.07
CEM III 42.5 UHP4.1 142.8/ 158.7/ 163.5/ 143.7/ 157.9/ 161.2/ 144.9/ 148.7/ 147.5/ 145.7/ 142.4/ 134.4/
20% SF 3.65 4.12 3.45 3.05 2.77 2.78 2.62 3.41 2.72 4.08 3.29 3.77
UH 4.2 153.8/ 170.9/ 176.1/ 154.7/ 170.7/ 174.7/ 156.1/ 162/ 161/ 156.9/ 155.3/ 146.7/
3.50 3.84 2.91 3.22 2.94 2.70 2.59 2.43 3.25 2.6 3.94 3.22
UHP4.3 143.2/ 159.1/ 164/ 144.1/ 158.5/ 161.9/ 145.3/ 149.4/ 148.3/ 146.1/ 143/ 135.1/
3.83 4.00 3.77 3.95 3.22 4.44 4.11 3.99 4.07 3.84 4.46 3.72
UHP4.4 131.4/ 146/ 150.5/ 132.2/ 144.7/ 147.6/ 133.4/ 135.3/ 134.2/ 134/ 129.5/ 122.1/
3.46 4.01 3.70 3.45 3.61 4.32 3.05 2.89 3.8 3.68 3.54 3.25
UHP4.5 123.8/ 137.5/ 141.8/ 124.5/ 135.7/ 138.5/ 125.7/ 126.5/ 125.5/ 126.3/ 120.9/ 114/
3.84 3.12 4.04 3.97 4.19 3.25 3.54 3.29 3.04 2.93 2.76 3.59
CEM III 42.5 UHP5.1 150.1/ 166.8/ 171.9/ 151/ 166.5/ 170.2/ 152.4/ 157.6/ 156.4/ 153.1/ 151.1/ 142.7/
25% SF 3.74 3.53 3.65 4.42 3.86 4.09 3.14 3.40 3.21 2.97 2.82 2.65
UHP5.2 161.1/ 179/ 184.5/ 162.1/ 179/ 183.8/ 163.5/ 171.3/ 170.1/ 164.3/ 164.5/ 155.3/
3.78 4.27 4.22 3.10 3.90 3.92 3.57 4.23 4.73 3.8 3.86 4.55
UHP5.3 150.6/ 167.3/ 172.4/ 151.5/ 167.1/ 170.8/ 152.9/ 158.4/ 157.2/ 153.6/ 151.7/ 143.4/
3.58 3.81 4.12 3.48 4.68 2.78 3.33 3.38 3.94 3.38 4.29 4.65
UHP5.4 137.8/ 153.1/ 157.8/ 138.6/ 152.2/ 155.4/ 139.9/ 143/ 141.9/ 140.6/ 136.7/ 129.1/
3.56 2.99 3.86 4.07 3.38 4.73 2.82 3.30 3.42 3.82 3.17 4.24
UHP5.5 130.4/ 144.9/ 149.3/ 131.2/ 143.5/ 146.3/ 132.4/ 134/ 132.9/ 133/ 128.2/ 120.9/
3.47 3.84 2.86 3.69 3.08 2.31 3.58 4.09 3.55 3.82 2.86 3.0

SD* standard deviation of the samples.

replacement with GBFS was observed to be better than that upon FA

replacement, as is evident from the slump flow values shown in Fig. 4.
The decrease in the slump flow of mixtures containing SF or FA materials
might be attributed to the high surface areas and smaller particle sizes.
These mixtures were found to be more cohesive and sticky than the OPC
mixture since these materials make alkaline solutions that are more
viscous than water [67]. While the reductions in the slump flow of
mixtures containing GBFS might be related to the rougher surface
texture and rapid reaction due to the high calcium content [68,69].

4.2. Compressive strength

The pozzolanic materials react chemically with calcium hydroxide

Fig. 2. Diagram of colorimetric method [56]. (Ca(OH)₂), also called portlandite (CH), to produce compounds with
cementitious properties (C-S-H-cement gel). This finding was automat­
ically reflected by a decrease in the porosity in volume, specifically in

6
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 3. Colorimetric method; a: Spraying AgNO3 solution; b, and c: Measuring
chloride penetration depth.
the ITZ. Thus, these pozzolanic materials improved the mechanical
properties of the cement paste through the interaction with CH [70,71].
Furthermore, the decrease of w/c ratio using high-range water-reducing
admixture; this preserves the small spacing of the cement grains, thereby
the free spaces around the granules in which the ITZ can form are
reduced [72]. From Table 3 and Fig. 5, which show two grades of cement
(CEM I 42.5N and CEM I 52.5N), the concrete mix UHP2.1 exhibited a
slight increase in compressive strength of approximately 6% relative to
7
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
concrete mix UHP1.1. The same results were obtained for high
replacement percentages of CEM III but with an insignificant improve­
ment of 5.5% and 5.2% for 30% and 50% replacement percentages,
respectively. It should be noted here that even if the improvement
resulting from this or any other effect was slight or insignificant,
enhancing sustainability remains the main purpose, provided that the
enhanced or modified concrete must still achieve ultra-high-
performance behavior. Blast furnace cement (CEM III) was used
because it is a sustainable type of cement in which GBFS, which is a by-
product material, is added to the raw cement in cement factories. The
type used in this research was CEM III/A, with a 50% slag percentage in
conformity with European specifications. And because enhancing sus­
tainability is among the main objectives of this research, some mixtures
were produced in which CEM III cement was used as the main binder,
and had incorporated with GBFS at percentages of 30% and 50%, as
listed in Groups 3, 4, and 5 in Table 2; provided that an acceptable
compressive strength was reached as UHPC concrete as obvious in
Table 3. The percentage of GBFS in these mixtures is reaching an extent
of 75%, which enhances and maximizes the production of environ­
mentally friendly and sustainable UHPC concrete [55,56]. When blast
furnace cement CEM III was used in concrete mix UHP3.1 instead of the
OPC CEM I in concrete mix UHP1.1, the compressive strength decreased
from 154.2 to 135.9 MPa, as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5. This result
indicates that an 11.9% decrease in compressive strength occurred when
CEM III was used instead of CEM I.
During the hydration process of cement and fly-ash, the resulted C-S-
H has two distinct morphologies, namely, a superficial low-density and a
high-density deeper into the cement and FA particles [73,74]. At early
ages, a limited amount of C-S-H gel can be generated, and the micro­
structure of the concrete is relatively less dense. With ongoing curing,
cement hydration with more portlandite can be generated which causes
the acceleration of FA pozzolanic reaction. The newly generated C-S-H
fills the pore structure already formed in the concrete and significantly
improves the mechanical properties of the concrete in the later curing
stage [75,76]. The compressive strength had a value of 163.4 MPa for
control mix UHP2.1 without any cement replacement, as shown in
Table 3 and Fig. 5. When 30% cement was replaced by CEM III, FA, and
GBFS, compressive strength became 150.5, 171.5, and 146.7 MPa,
respectively. That is, a 5% improvement in compressive strength was
recorded with 30% FA replacement, whereas for CEM III and GBFS re­
placements, no improvement was observed. However, CEM III replace­
ment had better concrete compressive strength than GBFS replacement.
When using GBFS, the internal overall cracks are not detected because
the dense matrix limits the entry of external moisture and the amount of
pore water that can be frozen [55]. With so higher replacement level of
GBFS, no considerable strength increment had happened, where all the
cement are most likely anticipated to have been used up in the system
and GBFS is acting just as a filler material [77]. When the replacement
percentage was increased to 50% as shown in Fig. 5, the values of
compressive strength for mixes with FA, CEM III, and GBFS replacement
decreased. However, the value of compressive strength for mix with FA
replacement was 160.9 MPa, which exceeds the minimum value of 150
MPa for UHPC.
The previous results show that the SF fine particles fill the gaps be­
tween the relatively large OPC particles, improve the particle packing in
the aggregate paste interface, and densify the ITZ and other micro­
structures of the concrete system. In addition, the pozzolanic reaction
between SF and Ca(OH)₂ produces C-S-H gel, which helps improve the
strength and porosity of the concrete mixture. The pozzolanic and filler
effects of SF on concrete may be derived from the microstructure char­
acteristics of concrete [78–80]. These compressive strength findings
were supported by SEM images for UHPC samples as shown in Figs. 14
and 15.
The effect of different contents of SF on compressive strength was
investigated. Table 3 and Fig. 6 show the values of compressive strength
for the considered mixes. Relative to concrete mix UHP3.1 that contains
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

Table 5
Depth of chloride penetration.
Group Mix Measured penetration depth (mm) Average Standard deviation

1 2 3 4 5 6

CEM I 42.5 15% SF UHP1.1 5.58 3.85 3.99 4.87 5.01 3.28 4.43 0.86
UHP1.2 4.66 4.28 3.81 5.71 5.24 4.86 4.76 0.68
UHP1.3 6.02 4.27 4.52 5.77 4.02 5.52 5.02 0.85
CEM I 52.5 15% SF UHP2.1 3.79 3.7 4.8 4.63 3.62 4.72 4.21 0.56
UHP2.2 5.64 3.87 3.46 5.1 5.23 4 4.55 0.88
UHP2.3 4.28 4.51 5.23 4.99 4.18 5.32 4.75 0.49
UHP2.4 4.45 3.41 4.41 3.29 3.33 4.33 3.87 0.58
UHP2.5 4.89 3.86 4.72 3.69 4.98 3.6 4.29 0.64
UHP2.6 4.78 5.81 5.44 4.04 4.51 3.38 4.66 0.89
UHP2.7 5.78 4.48 5.48 4.18 3.93 6.03 4.98 0.89
CEM III 42.5 15% SF UHP3.1 6.2 4.4 3.8 4.75 5.25 5.6 5.00 0.86
UHP3.2 4.66 3.98 3.7 5.38 4.7 5.66 4.68 0.76
UHP3.3 4.73 5.68 4.48 4.28 5.48 5.23 4.98 0.57
UHP3.4 4.43 4.94 5.34 6.44 6.15 5.64 5.49 0.75
UHP3.5 6.53 5.34 5.61 6.8 6.92 5.22 6.07 0.77
CEM III 42.5 20% SF UHP4.1 3.68 5.5 4.06 5.38 4.82 5.24 4.78 0.75
UHP4.2 5.52 4.01 4.9 3.38 5.07 3.83 4.45 0.83
UHP4.3 4.07 5.4 5.47 3.85 3.8 5.18 4.63 0.80
UHP4.4 6.41 4.65 5.89 4.45 4.69 4.93 5.17 0.79
UHP4.5 5.19 4.7 4.91 5.73 6.01 6.22 5.46 0.62
CEM III 42.5 25% SF UHP5.1 4.34 4.02 5.26 4.8 3.88 5.12 4.57 0.58
UHP5.2 3.75 4.86 3.83 3.66 4.69 4.77 4.26 0.57
UHP5.3 5.5 4.3 5.1 4.14 3.44 4.76 4.54 0.74
UHP5.4 4.69 5.19 5.68 3.8 4.2 6.08 4.94 0.87
UHP5.5 5.99 4.58 6.01 4.43 5.84 4.41 5.21 0.81

Fig. 4. Slump flow values for all mixes.

15% content of SF and CEM III without any replacement, an improve­
ment in compressive strength was recorded for concrete mixes UHP3.2
and UHP3.3 with replacement percentages of 30% and 50% FA,
respectively (from 135.9 MPa for UHP3.1 to 146.5 and 136.2 MPa for
UHP3.2 and UHP3.3, respectively) (Table 3 and Fig. 6). When the SF
content was increased to 20% in mixes UHP4.2 and UHP4.3, compres­
sive strength was increased by 13.2% and 5.4% relative to UHP3.1,
respectively. Another improvement in compressive strength was recor­
ded when the SF content was increased to 25% in mixes UHP5.2 and
UHP5.3, where the values of compressive strength increased from 135.9
MPa for UHP3.1 to 161.1 and 150.6 MPa (i.e., approximately 18.5% and
10.8%) for UHP5. 2 and UHP5. 3 relative to control mix UHP3.1,
respectively. The positive effect of utilizing GBFS substitution lies in the
way that it contributes low thickness C-S-H gel than OPC alone and the
gel fills the capillary pores [81]. With regard to GBFS, as shown in Fig. 6,
no improvement was observed in the compressive strength values when
the SF content increased from 15% to 20%, but compressive strength
values even declined. However, for the SF content of 25% in concrete
mixes UHP5.4 and UHP5.5 that possess replacement percentages of 30%
and 50% GBFS, respectively, a slight increase in compressive strength
value was noted at 30% replacement percentage only (from 135.9 MPa
for UHP3.1 to 137.8 MPa for UHP5.4). Such an insignificant improve­
ment is amounted to 1.4% for M5.4 relative to control mix UHP3.1.
4.3. Static modulus of elasticity
Generally, incorporating SCMs with OPC can improve the elastic
modulus of the mixture [82,83]. Mazloom et al. [84] studied the effect of

8
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

Fig. 5. Compressive strength values after 28 days for all mixes.

Fig. 6. Effect of SF content on compressive strength.

SF on the modulus of elasticity and found that increasing the proportion
of SF will increase the modulus of elasticity of concrete. Table 3 and
Fig. 7 show the values of static modulus of elasticity for the considered
mixes. Relative to concrete mix UHP3.1 with CEMIII cement, a 15%
content of SF, and without any replacement, an improvement in static
modulus of elasticity was recorded for concrete mixes UHP3.2 and
UHP3.3 with replacement percentages of 30% and 50% FA, respectively
(from 46.00 GPa to 48.21 and 46.20 GPa, respectively). When the SF
content was increased to 20% in mixes UHP4.2 and UHP4.3, the static
modulus of elasticity was increased by 9.3% and 3.5% relative to
UHP3.1, respectively. Another improvement in static modulus of elas­
ticity was recorded when the SF content was increased to 25% in mixes
UHP5.2 and UHP5.3, where the values of static modulus of elasticity
increased to 51.55 and 49.3 GPa (i.e., approximately 12.1% and 7.2%)
relative to control mix UHP3.1, respectively.
The hydration of GBFS alone is a slow process, limited by the for­
mation of a poorly permeable layer, but can be subsequently accelerated
when incorporated with Portland cement which produces the hydroxyl
ions that break down the glassy structure [85]. With regard to GBFS
replacement, as indicated in Fig. 7, no improvement was observed in the
static modulus of elasticity values when the SF content increased from
15% to 20%, but the static modulus of elasticity values even declined.
However, for the SF content of 25%, a slight improvement in static
modulus of elasticity value was noted at 30% replacement percentage
only, such an improvement amounted to 1.7% for UHP5.4 relative to
control mix UHP3.1. These differences in static modulus of elasticity
improvement are because of the effectiveness of the ultrafine particles of
SF that acted as ideal fillers. Adding FA (in addition to SF) that contains a
high content of silica fills the concrete pores with calcium silicate [74].
The improvement in the modulus of elasticity when using SF in the

9
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 7. Modulus of elasticity values after 28 days for all mixes.
mixture is attributed to the fact that SF is a pozzolanic material that
reacts with CH resulting from the hydration process of cement to pro­
duce C-S-H with cementitious properties, which creates bonding and
cohesion between sand, quartz and non-hydrated cement grains. Which
strengthen the internal structure of the mixture and improves the elastic
modulus [70,71]. Also, the process of forming C-S-H as a result of the SF
reaction greatly reduces the chance of forming ITZ around the aggregate
grains, as ITZ is considered the main factor for reducing the modulus of
elasticity by isolating the aggregate grains from the binder. Therefore,
by reducing, strengthening, or even canceling the ITZ region, the in­
ternal structure of the concrete is interconnected and the modulus of
elasticity improves [86,87].
4.4. Sulfate resistance
From the previous literature, SEM/EDS results showed that the
fundamental sulfate aggression outputs were gypsum and ettringite in­
side the surface and inward parts, respectively, which was predictable
Fig. 8. Compressive strength for samples under sulfate attack for various replacement materials.
10
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
with the examination conducted by Irassar et al. [88]. Therefore, gyp­
sum is more likely to be produced through the crystallization within the
surface part because of the higher sulfate concentration. As the sulfate
ions continue to move into the composite material, the corresponding
sulfate concentration gradually decreases, thereby forming ettringite
crystals [89–91]. From Table 4 and Fig. 8, the compressive strength for
the UHP2.1 mixture in group 2 without replacement materials was
163.4 MPa and became 160.8 MPa after the age of 180 days of the
sulfate attack at a concentration of 75 g/l. This decrease in compressive
strength as a result of the sulfate attack did not evidently occur except in
advanced ages. Moreover, this decrease did not affect the quality of the
concrete as it is of ultra-high-performance, which remained higher than
150 MPa.
When replacing 30% from cement weight in group 2, and at a light
concentration of 5 g/l, the compressive strength increased with the in­
crease in the attack period, and the rate of increase from the age of 28 to
180 days of the attack with FA replacement was greater than that with
GBFS or CEM III replacements. At the average concentration of 50 g/l,
A.M. Tahwia et al.
the compressive strength increased with an increase in the attack period,
but with lower rates than the previous one. In addition, the rate of in­
crease with FA replacement remained greater than that with GBFS or
CEM III replacements. As for the strong concentration of 75 g/l, the
compressive strength from the age of 28 to 180 days of the attack
decreased in small rates which did not exceed 5.5%. However, the
decreasing rate in compressive strength in the case of FA replacement
was nearly half the decreasing rate in compressive strength when
replacing with GBFS or CEM III, which indicates the efficiency and ac­
tivity of FA at distant ages than GBFS or CEM III as shown in Fig. 8, and
Table 4. For replacement percentage of 50%, the same results, that is
30%, were obtained but with lower values for compressive strength.
When Na2SO4 penetrates concrete structures, it will react with por­
tlandite (Ca(OH)₂) or C-S-H to form gypsum (CaSO₄⋅2H₂O) [52], which
in turn may react with alumina-containing compounds to form ettringite
(3CaO⋅Al₂O3⋅3CaSO₄⋅32H₂O). The formation of sulfate products (e.g.,
gypsum and ettringite) could be swellable, causing concrete structures
to swell, crack, scale, and disintegrate [89]. For GBFS and CEM III as a
replacement material for cement, after the sulfate attack with a con­
centration of 75 for a long period of up to 180 days and a replacement
percentage of no more than 30%, concrete at that time is very close to
UHPC. The reason is that the concrete compressive strength reaches
141.3 and 145.5 MPa for GBFS and CEM III, respectively. When the
replacement percentage of a certain replacement material increases to
some high limit, the amount of cement gel formation decreases, and the
chance of producing the weak products of sulfates attacking would in­
crease [52,53]. If the replacement percentage is increased to 50% of the
cement weight and for the same 180 day period of the sulfate attack,
then the compressive strengths were 143.1 and 150.3 MPa, which were
detected when replacing GBFS, and CEM III at an sulfate concentration
not exceeding 50 gm/l, to be as close as possible to ultra-high-
performance. Moreover, if the replacement percentage is 50% and the
sulfate concentration is fixed at 75 gm/l, then compressive strengths of
139.5 and 144.9 MPa which were detected for GBFS and CEM III
replacement at an attack age of not more than 28 and 90 days respec­
tively are as close as possible to ultra-high-performance.
For GBFS as a cement replacement material, the best compressive
strength that can be considered for concrete still ultra-high-performance
was 154.9 MPa, which was detected at 30% replacement percentage,
sulfate concentration of 50 g/l, and attack period of 180 days. For CEM
III as a cement replacement material, the best compressive strength at
which concrete can still be considered ultra-high-performance was
150.3 MPa and was detected at 50% replacement percentage, sulfate
Fig. 9. Compressive strength after 28 days for samples under sulfate attack for various SF contents.
11
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
concentration of 50 g/l, and attack period of 180 days. However, as a
replacement material from the used cement, FA achieved the best results
as the compressive strength at the replacement percentage of 50%, the
sulfate concentration of 75 g/l, and the attack period of 180 days of
157.4 MPa.
When replacing a quantity of cement with secondary materials and
adding SF, the chemical reaction with the products of cement hydration
to produce C-S-H prevents the production of gypsum and ettringite by
stopping the reaction of sulfate salts with the products of cement hy­
dration. Moreover, the more pozzolanic action of the replacement ma­
terial, the more cement gel is produced and the less the chance of
forming the weak substances resulting from sulfates attacking [90,91].
To clarify the effect of increasing the content of SF on the compressive
strength of samples subjected to severe sulfate attack with a capacity of
75 g/l, and for a long period of up to 180 days, Figs. 9–11 could be
reviewed, showing that the compressive strengths for mixes containing
15%, 20%, and 25% SF content were 127, 134.4, and 142.7 MPa as for
mixes UHP3.1, UHP4.1, and UHP5.1 respectively. Consequently, an
increase of 5% SF leads to an increase in compressive strength by 5.8%,
and an increase of 10% leads to an increase in compressive strength by
12.4% compared with samples containing 15% SF content. At 28 days of
a sulfate attack and from Table 4 and Fig. 9, for the reference mixes
UHP3.1, UHP 4.1, and UHP5.1 without cement replacement, the
compressive strength values for samples under a concentration of 75 g/l
slightly increased compared with that under a concentration of 0 g/l
with equal rising rates of 2%. At any replacement percentage, even for
FA or GBFS, the same 2% rising rates in compressive strength values
were obtained from 0 to 75 g/l sulfate concentration.
At 90 days of a sulfate attack, and from Table 4 and Fig. 10, a
decrease in compressive strength was detected, and the rates of decline
in compressive strength were 10.8%, 10.3%, and 9.4%, for the reference
mixes UHP3.1, UHP4.1, and UHP5.1 respectively. The compressive
strength values were improved when replacing 30% FA as the dropping
rates became 9.9%, 9.1%, and 8.1%. For 50% FA replacement, nearly
the same dropping rates of the reference mixes were obtained, but for
30% or 50% GBFS replacement, the dropping rates increased, and
consequently, the compressive strength values were declined.
At the age of 180 days of the sulfate attack, the decrease in
compressive strength began to be greater and more severe than at the
age of 90 days, the dropping rates in compressive strength from zero
concentration to 75 g/l concentration were 18.4%, 17.8%, and 17.0%,
for UHP3.1, UHP4.1, and UHP5.1 mixtures respectively. An improve­
ment in compressive strength values was obtained for 30% and 50% FA
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 10. Compressive strength after 90 days for samples under sulfate attack for various SF contents.
Fig. 11. Compressive strength values after 180 days for samples under sulfate attack for various SF contents.
replacement as the dropping rates were decreased in both replacements.
For the GBFS replacement and from Table 4 and Fig. 11, no improve­
ment in compressive strength occurred at any replacement percentage
when sulfate concentration was increased from 0 to 75 g/l in compari­
son with the reference mixes. Furthermore, as shown in Figs. 9–11, for
FA or GBFS replacement materials, the dropping rates in compressive
strength from 0 to 75 g/l concentration decreased with the increase in
the SF content at any attack period or replacement percentage, indi­
cating an improvement in the concrete resistance to sulfate attack with
the increasing SF content. As proved by Ahmed et al. [45], the
compressive strength loss of the developed UHPC after approximately 6
months of severe sulfate exposure is very low, which is reduced by 7%,
thereby confirming that the developed UHPC has high resistance to
sulfate attack.
12
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
4.5. Chloride penetration resistance
Otsuki et al. [47] first introduced the use of silver nitrate colorimetry
to measure the penetration depth of chloride ions. From Table 5 and
Fig. 12, the penetration of chlorides in the UHP1.1 and UHP3.1 mixtures
was 4.43 and 5.00 mm, respectively. That is, the use of ordinary CEM I
cement as in UHP 1.1 mix is better than that of blast furnace CEM III
cement as in UHP 3.1mix, from the chloride penetration resistance point
of view, with an improvement of 11.4%. According to the criteria re­
ported by Broomfield [92], the average value of the rapid chloride ion
permeability of the developed UHPC indicates that the chloride ion
permeability is relatively low. From Table 5 and Fig. 12, and compared
with the controlling mixture UHP2.1 that does not contain any cement
replacement materials, replacing a percentage of cement with 30% FA
improves the chloride penetration resistance by 8%. Then, if the
replacement percentage is raised to 50%, the concrete resistance to
chloride penetration increases but by a small percentage of 1.9%, as
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 12. Average chloride penetration depth for all mixes.
shown in Fig. 12. As for CEM III and GBFS as cement replacement ma­
terials, the concrete resistance to chloride penetration did not improve
because the depth of chloride penetration upon replacement of 30% or
50% is greater than that of the UHP2.1 control mixture, although CEM
III replacement was better in this aspect than GBFS replacement. The
reason for this is that when the cement replacement percentage with
substitution materials, was risen to 50%, this leads to a decrease in the
amount of CaOH2 resulting from hydration, due to the reduction in the
amount of cement in the mixture, and thus the production of calcium
silicates decreases, especially when replacing GBFS, whose chemical
composition contains a relatively low proportion of silica. This leads to
increase the chance of penetration of chlorides [79].
When using cement of the grade of 42.5 as in the UHP1.1 mixture,
the penetration of chlorides was 4.43 mm, and by using cement of the
grade of 52.5 as in the mixture UHP2.1, the penetration was reduced to
4.21 mm. Thus, the resistance of UHPC concrete to chloride penetration
is insignificantly improved when using 52.5 instead of 42.5 grade
cement with a ratio of 5%. The mixture developed by using SF and other
pozzolanic by-products has a very dense microstructure, resulting in
relatively low water absorption and permeability [45,72,77]. Increasing
the SF content from 15% as in the UHP3.1 mixture to 20% as in the
UHP4.1 mixture decreases the depth of chloride penetration from 5.00
to 4.78 mm for UHP3.1 and UHP4.1, respectively, this means that the
penetration of chlorides had slightly decreased by 4.4%. Moreover, by
increasing the SF content to 25%, as in the UHP5.1 mixture, the con­
crete’s resistance to chloride penetration improved, as the depth of
chloride penetration decreased from 5.00 to 4.57 mm for UHP 3.1 and
UHP5.1 respectively, so that the penetration of chlorides had decreased
by 8.6%.
When replacing 30% of the cement weight with FA and GBFS, the
depths of chloride penetration were 4.68 and 5.49 mm respectively, and
by increasing the replacement percentage to 50%, the depths of chloride
penetration became 4.98 and 6.07 mm respectively. When increasing
the SF content to 20% with the replacement of 50% FA and GBFS, the
penetration changed to 4.63 and 5.46 mm. Then, by increasing the SF
content to 25% and replacing cement weight with 50% FA and GBFS, the
depths of chloride penetration became 4.54 and 5.21 mm respectively.
Therefore, in general, when replacing 50% from the weight of CEM III
cement with FA, and GBFS, better results for chloride penetration
resistance could be achieved than the results when replacing by 30%,
but with an increasing SF content. When the amount of SF that rich in
13
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
silica is increased, then the pozzolanic reaction is improved and a
greater amount of calcium silicate is produced. The rest of the SF with
ultra-fine granules works as an excellent filler within the relatively
larger particles of the other fine materials. This leads to strengthen all
the microstructure levels of the concrete composite, which acts as a
barrier to the penetration of chlorides [79]. Therefore, when the
replacement percentage was fixed at 50%, and SF content was raised to
20%, a slight improvement in the chloride penetration resistance was
detected as 1% and 0.5% when replacing with FA and GBFS, respec­
tively. When raising the SF content to 25%, the chloride penetration
resistance was enhanced to 3% and 5.1% respectively. With respect to
the mix UHP3.1 without replacement, an improvement in chloride
penetration resistance was detected when replacing 50% FA and 25% SF
content by approximately 9.2%, but no such improvement for GBFS
replacement was detected. The extremely low chloride penetrability
value and extremely high impermeability properties of the developed
UHPC clearly indicate its enhanced high resistance to corrosion [45].
4.6. Water permeability
From Fig. 13, which shows two grades of cement (CEM I 42.5N and
CEM I 52.5N), the concrete mix UHP2.1 exhibited a decrease in water
permeability of approximately 6.6% relative to concrete mix UHP1.1.
The same results were obtained for high replacement percentages of
CEM III but with an improvement of 4.5% and 4.8% for 30% and 50%
replacement percentages, respectively. When blast furnace cement CEM
III was used in concrete mix UHP3.1 instead of the OPC CEM I in con­
crete mix UHP1.1, the coefficient of water permeability increased from
1.67 × 10− 11 cm/sec to 1.88 × 10− 11 cm/sec, as shown in Fig. 13. This
result indicates that a 12.6% increase in water permeability occurred
when CEM III was used instead of CEM I.
The coefficient of water permeability had a value of 1.56 × 10− 11
cm/sec for control mix UHP2.1 without any cement replacement, as
shown in Fig. 13. When 30% cement was replaced by CEM III, FA, and
GBFS, coefficient of water permeability became 1.70 × 10− 11, 1.46 ×
10− 11, and 1.76 × 10− 11 cm/sec, respectively. That is, a 6.4% decreasing
in water permeability was recorded with 30% FA replacement, whereas
for CEM III and GBFS replacements, the coefficient of water permeability
increased. However, CEM III replacement had better impermeability
than GBFS replacement. When the replacement percentage was
increased to 50% as shown in Fig. 13, another increase in the coefficient
A.M. Tahwia et al.
Fig. 13. Coefficient of water permeability for all mixes.
of water permeability values for mixes with CEM III, and GBFS re­
placements was detected. However, such value for mix with FA
replacement was slightly decreased.
The effect of different contents of SF on water permeability of UHPC
mixes was investigated. Fig. 13 shows the values of the coefficient of
water permeability for the considered mixes. Relative to concrete mix
UHP3.1 that contains 15% content of SF, CEM III cement, and without
any cement replacement, a decrease in water permeability coefficient
was recorded for concrete mixes UHP3.2 and UHP3.3 with replacement
percentages of 30% and 50% FA, respectively (from 1.88 × 10− 11 cm/
sec for UHP3.1 to 1.75 × 10− 11 cm/sec and 1.83 × 10− 11 cm/sec for
UHP3.2 and UHP3.3, respectively) (see Fig. 13). When the SF content
was increased to 20% in mixes UHP4.2 and UHP4.3, water permeability
coefficient was decreased by 12.2% and 5.3% relative to UHP3.1,
respectively. Another improvement in UHPC impermeability was
recorded when the SF content was increased to 25% in mixes UHP5.2
and UHP5.3, where the values of water permeability coefficient
decreased from 1.88 × 10− 11 cm/sec for UHP3.1 to 1.52 × 10− 11 cm/sec
and 1.64 × 10− 11 cm/sec (i.e., approximately 19.1% and 12.8%) for
UHP5. 2 and UHP5. 3 relative to control mix UHP3.1, respectively. With
regard to GBFS, as shown in Fig. 13, when the SF content increased from
15% to 20%, the coefficient of water permeability values were observed
to increase relative to control mix UHP3.1. However, for the SF content
of 25% in concrete mixes UHP5.4 and UHP5.5 that possess replacement
percentages of 30% and 50% GBFS, respectively, a slight decrease in
water permeability coefficient value was noted at 30% replacement
percentage only (from 1.88 × 10− 11 cm/sec for UHP3.1 to 1.85 × 10− 11
cm/sec for UHP5.4). Such an improvement amounted to 1.6% for M5.4
relative to control mix UHP3.1. However, this improvement of the
permeability of UHPC concrete incorporating SF, FA, and GBFS may be
attributed to the difference in pore distribution. The higher content of
calcium silicate hydrate gel (C-S-H) that produced from the pozzolanic
reaction is the main cause of this difference in pore structures. Moreover,
the relative decrease in capillary porosity is due to the difference in
precipitation of the CSH gel. In contrast to OPC mixtures, the C-S-H gel
does not precipitate directly on the cement gains, but in the space be­
tween clinker grains and SF grains [93].
4.7. Microstructure
At the microstructure level, the concrete composite was classified
into cement paste, aggregates, and ITZ between the aggregates and
14
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
cement paste. The so-called interfacial transition zone–ITZ–in concrete,
essentially affects the properties of the resulting concrete due to its large
number of pores, as well as the presence of soluble calcium hydroxide
CaOH2 [86]. The inner microstructure of UHPC principally includes
unhydrated cement particles, quartz sand, and hydration outputs, such
as C–S–H [87,94]. The microstructure of UHPC depends on the pore
structure, morphology of hydration outputs, and microstructure of ITZ
[21,95]. In the current study, the microstructure and morphology of two
types, namely, cement paste and aggregate-paste interfaces, were
examined via SEM.
4.7.1. Cement paste microstructure
Fig. 14 a–g depicts the SEM images of the cement paste for the
mixtures: the reference mixes, UHP2.1, and UHP3.1, as well as mixes
UHP2.2, UHP2.4, UHP2.6, UHP3.2, and UHP3.4 at 28 days. The SEM
images of the UHPC mixes verified the effects of 30% GBFS, CEM III, and
FA replacement proportions on cement paste microstructure. In this
study, an amount of SF of not less than 15% from the weight of the
cement was added to provide the necessary amount of SiO₂ to obtain
UHPC, for all mixes. Then, UHPC was given the developed sustainability
using environmentally friendly materials as in Fig. 14 b, c, d, f, and g.
The microstructure of 30% FA replacement mixes, as in Fig. 14 c and f,
was less porous than that of the reference mixes in Fig. 14 a and e,
respectively. The number of interfacial voids was reduced because of the
high percentage of SiO₂, which was supplied by FA in addition to SF
relative to cement. The SF and FA materials reacted with portlandite,
which is a cement hydration output but compensated for the decrease in
C-S-H. Evidently, the C-S-H gel was widely spread in the UHPC paste
structure as shown in SEM images. [21]. SEM observation indicates that
the structure of hardened paste is extremely dense because of the very
low w/b ratio, hydration of cement, and the pozzolanic action of SF and
FA. The most hydration product C–S–H gel is uniform, and so far, por­
tlandite and/or ettringite could not be found [96–98]. For 30% GBFS
replacement mixes, as in Fig. 14 d and g, it contributes low thickness C-
S-H gel than cement alone [81], and the remaining amount of GBFS is
acting as a filler material [77]. However, for 30% CEM III replacement
mixes, as in Fig. 14 b, which is a blended cement contains clinker and
slag, the additional amount of clinker founded in CEM III contributes to
producing Ca(OH)₂, which reacts with SF to supply with a further
amount of C-S-H, and the slag in the CEM III does the previous work for
GBFS. A considerable variety of hydration outputs, including C-S-H in
the state of fibrous and honeycomb structures, ettringite (AFt) with
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

C-S-H ge Portlandite
Portlandite
C-S-H ge
Ca(

Pore

Ettringite
Ettringite Pore
(AFt)
(AFt)

Ettringite Ettringite
(AFt) (AFt)

Portlandite

Portlandite
Pore C-S-H ge
C-S-H ge

GBFS

C-S-H ge
C-S-H ge
Portlandite
Ca(

Ettringite
(AFt)
Portlandite
Ca( Sand
particle

Portlandite
Ca(

Ettringite Pore
(AFt)

C-S-H ge

(g) - GBFS (UHP

Fig. 14. From a-g: SEM images of the cement paste.

outspread and needle-like shapes, and CH plates resulting from the
delayed hydration reaction at early ages, were conjointly detected.
When further hydration reaction had happened, the pores within ag­
gregates and cement paste were stuffed with poor-crystallinity C-S-H
and second-generation Aft [86].
4.7.2. Microstructure of aggregate-paste interface
Fig. 15 shows the SEM observations for the microstructure of ITZs in
the structure of UHPC. Reference mixes UHP2.1 and UHP3.1 and mixes
UHP2.2, UHP2.4, UHP2.6, UHP3.2, and UHP3.4 at 28 days. The ITZ
between aggregates and paste matrix has so less porosity (very dense),
less CH content, and nearly without evident pores. Normally, the

15
A.M. Tahwia et al. Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491

GBFS
Non-reacting
FA particle

Aggregate
particle

GBFS (UHP

Fig. 15. From a-g: SEM images of the contact zone between aggregates and cement paste.

16
A.M. Tahwia et al.
microstructure of the ITZ is influenced by the “wall effect” in the vicinity
of aggregate surfaces. This region is approximately 50 μm from the grain
surface into the cement paste [99,100]. In this study, sand with particle
sizes from 0.15 to 0.60 mm was used as the single aggregate, which can
reduce the “wall effect” and thickness of the ITZ. Therefore, the thick­
ness of the ITZ of all samples obtained in this study is similar and very
small. The reason is the presence of SF as a basic component in the
practical program, with a slight difference in the ITZ for mixtures
UHP2.6 and UHP3.4 which containing GBFS because the percentage of
silica in GBFS chemical composition as shown in Table 1 is so small if
compared to SF or FA and therefore the hydration outputs, such as
C–S–H, in GBFS concrete are fewer than that in FA concrete but the
remaining GBFS particles act as filler [101]. However, owing to the low
w/b and pozzolanic reactions between CH and reactive mineral
admixture, which consumes most of the CH crystals and converts them
to C–S–H, the ITZ in UHPC nearly seems as dense as the matrix [27,102].
(a)
(b
(c
Fig. 16. EDX patterns. a: reference mix UHP3.1, b: UHP3.2 and c: UHP3.4.
17
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
4.7.3. EDX analysis
The components of the considered concrete were determined via
EDX spectroscopic analysis and a spot scan. Mixes UHP3.2 and UHP3.4,
as well as the reference mix UHP3.1 were analyzed, as shown in Fig. 16
a–c which shows the EDX visions. As shown in Fig. 16. b, when 30% of
cement is substituted with FA, an increase in the silica content was found
compared with that of the reference mixture shown in Fig. 16 a, by a so
large percentage that may reach twice. The presence of FA in the
mixture enhanced this high content of silica, leading to the production of
more C-S-H gel, which is the main product of the pozzolanic reaction.
Thus, the mechanical properties and durability of this type of mixtures
are improved by filling the internal interstitial spaces with this gel. As
for mixtures containing 30% replacement with slag cement GBFS, as
shown in Fig. 16 c, the content of silica had decreased compared with
that of the reference mixture shown in Fig. 16 a. The reason is that
cement and slag cement GBFS work together in the presence of SF to
complete the reaction, and the residual of the slag cement GBFS present
UHP -reference
UHP
(UHP
A.M. Tahwia et al.
will act as filler [77,81].
The major hydration product in the samples without rich siliceous
materials is amorphous to poor-crystallinity C-S-H, and the ratio SiO₂/
CaO would be relatively small. However, in the concrete samples rich
with siliceous components, the major hydration product in these sam­
ples is amorphous to improved crystallinity C-S-H, and the values of
SiO₂/CaO ratios become so high compared with the previous samples
[21].
5. Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the laboratory results
and observations obtained from the tests conducted on the UHPC
specimens.
1) Replacing 30% of the weight of cement would increase the sustain­
ability, but increasing the replacement percentage to 50%, improves
this sustainability, thus even if the improvement resulting from this
increase in replacement is slight or insignificant, enhancing sus­
tainability remains the main purpose, provided that the modified
concrete must still achieve ultra-high-performance behavior.
2) Mixtures of UHPC might be produced in which CEM III was used as
the main binder. However, the mixtures using the CEM I cement have
remained better in compressive strength than CEM III mixtures with
an advantage of 11.4%.
3) The highest result for sulfate attack resistance was achieved with
50% FA replacement, where the compressive strength result declined
to 157.4 MPa after 180 days of sulfate attack with 75 g/l sulfate
concentration.
4) For specimens subjected to 180 days sulfate attack containing CEM
III or GBFS replacements, the best compressive strength results at
which concrete can still be considered ultra-high-performance could
be reached with sulfate concentration of not exceeding 50 g/l, and
replacement percentages of 50%, and 30% for CEM III and GBFS
respectively.
5) For specimens subjected to 180 days of sulfate attack, with 75 g/l
concentration, an increase of 5% SF leads to an insignificant
improvement in compressive strength by 5.8%, and an increase of
10% SF improves the compressive strength by 12.4%, when
compared with samples containing 15% SF content.
6) Replacing cement with 30% FA, slightly improves the resistance of
UHPC to chloride penetration by 8%, and if the replacement is raised
to 50%, the depth of chloride penetration increases, but remains less
than that of the controlling mixture. As for CEM III and GBFS as
cement replacement materials, the concrete resistance to chloride
penetration did not improve compared with the controlling mixture,
although CEM III was better in this aspect than GBFS.
7) For mixes of CEM III main binder, replacing FA up to 50% with
increasing SF content from 15% to 25%, improves the UHPC resis­
tance to chloride penetration with a slight decrease in penetration
depth by about 9.2% relative to the controlling mix.
8) The replacement of FA increases the extent of cement hydration in
UHPC at later ages, and the substantial pozzolanic reaction of FA
results in an improvement of UHPC microstructure.
9) SEM images for the structure of UHPC samples show the high dense
microstructure and a very small thickness of the ITZ, especially when
incorporating FA, and the obtained results from the conducted
permeability and compressive strength tests were strengthened by
these SEM observations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmed M. Tahwia: Supervision, Conceptualization, Investigation,
Writing - review & editing. Gamal M. Elgendy: Methodology, Re­
sources, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visuali­
zation. Mohamed Amin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
18
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
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.
References
[1] T. Kuhlman, J. Farrington, What is sustainability? Sustainability 2 (11) (2010)
3436–3448.
[2] M. Garetti, M. Taisch, Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges,
Prod. Plan. Control 23 (2-3) (2012) 83–104.
[3] P. Kathirvel, S. Sreekumaran, Sustainable development of ultra high performance
concrete using geopolymer technology, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021) 102267.
[4] K. Tsimplokoukou, M. Lamperti, P. Negro, Building design for safety and
sustainability, JRC Sci. Policy Rep. 10 (2014), 338223.
[5] T.R. Naik, Sustainability of concrete construction, Pract. Period. Struct. Design
Constr. 13 (2) (2008) 98–103.
[6] A.M. Tahwia, A. Abdel-Raheem, N. Abdel-Aziz, M. Amin, Light transmittance
performance of sustainable translucent self-compacting concrete, J. Build. Eng.
38 (2021) 102178.
[7] M.N. Isa, K. Pilakoutas, M. Guadagnini, H. Angelakopoulos, Mechanical
performance of affordable and eco-efficient ultra-high performance concrete
(UHPC) containing recycled tyre steel fibres, Constr. Build. Mater. 255 (2020)
119272.
[8] S. Abbas, M.L. Nehdi, M.A. Saleem, Ultra-high performance concrete: mechanical
performance, durability, sustainability and implementation challenges, Int. J.
Concr. Struct. Mater. 10 (3) (2016) 271–295.
[9] N.M. Azmee, N. Shafiq, Ultra-high performance concrete: From fundamental to
applications, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018) e00197.
[10] V.Y. Lei, B. Nematollahi, A.B.M. Said, B.A. Gopal, T.S. Yee, Application of ultra
high performance fiber reinforced concrete–The Malaysia perspective, Int. J.
Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 3 (1) (2012) 26–44.
[11] A. Alaskar, A. Albidah, A.S. Alqarni, R. Alyousef, H. Mohammadhosseini,
Performance evaluation of high-strength concrete reinforced with basalt fibers
exposed to elevated temperatures, J. Build. Eng. 35 (2021) 102108.
[12] P. Smarzewski, Mechanical properties of ultra-high performance concrete with
partial utilization of waste foundry sand, Buildings 10 (1) (2020) 11.
[13] M.G. Sohail, R. Kahraman, N. Al Nuaimi, B. Gencturk, W. Alnahhal, Durability
characteristics of high and ultra-high performance concretes, J. Build. Eng. 33
(2021) 101669.
[14] P. Richard, M.H. Cheyrezy, Reactive powder concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (7)
(1995) 1501–1511.
[15] Q. Huang, X. Zhu, D. Liu, L. Zhao, M. Zhao, Modification of water absorption and
pore structure of high-volume fly ash cement pastes by incorporating nanosilica,
J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021) 101638.
[16] Nilsson, L. (2018). Development of UHPC concrete using mostly locally available
raw materials.
[17] O. Kayali, M.N. Haque, J.M. Khatib, Sustainability and emerging concrete
materials and their relevance to the Middle East, Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2
(1) (2008).
[18] D. Qian, R. Yu, Z. Shui, Y.u. Sun, C. Jiang, F. Zhou, M. Ding, X. Tong, Y. He,
A novel development of green ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) based on
appropriate application of recycled cementitious material, J. Cleaner Prod. 261
(2020) 121231.
[19] F. Xu, S. Wang, T. Li, B. Liu, B. Li, Y. Zhou, Mechanical properties and pore
structure of recycled aggregate concrete made with iron ore tailings and
polypropylene fibers, J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021) 101572.
[20] R. Yang, R. Yu, Z. Shui, X. Gao, X. Xiao, D. Fan, Z. Chen, J. Cai, X. Li, Y. He,
Feasibility analysis of treating recycled rock dust as an environmentally friendly
alternative material in Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC), J. Cleaner Prod.
258 (2020) 120673.
[21] M. Amin, B.A. Tayeh, I.S. Agwa, Effect of using mineral admixtures and ceramic
wastes as coarse aggregates on properties of ultrahigh-performance concrete,
J. Cleaner Prod. 273 (2020) 123073.
[22] N. Farzadnia, A.A.A. Ali, R. Demirboga, Incorporation of mineral admixtures in
sustainable high performance concrete, Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2 (1)
(2011).
[23] V. Srivastava, R. Kumar, P.K. Mehta, Concrete made with waste materials-A
review, J. Environ. Nanotechnol. 2 (2) (2013) 102–106.
[24] U. Mueller, N. Williams Portal, V. Chozas, M. Flansbjer, I. Larazza, N. da Silva,
K. Malaga, Reactive powder concrete for facade elements–A sustainable
approach, J. Facade Des. Eng. 4 (1–2) (2016) 53–66.
[25] C. Andrade, J. Torres (2013). Long term carbonation of UHPC. In Proceedings of
International Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete.
Marseille, France (Vol. 256).
[26] Ç. Yalçınkaya, O. Çopuroğlu, Hydration heat, strength and microstructure
characteristics of UHPC containing blast furnace slag, J. Build. Eng. (2020),
101915.
[27] W. Meng, M. Valipour, K.H. Khayat, Optimization and performance of cost-
effective ultra-high performance concrete, Mater. Struct. 50 (1) (2017) 1–16.
A.M. Tahwia et al.
[28] T.C. Madhavi, L. Swamy Raju, D. Mathur, Durabilty and strength properties of
high volume fly ash concrete, J. Civil Eng. Res. 4 (2A) (2014) 7–11.
[29] O.M. El-Louh (2014). Fresh and hardened properties of locally produced reactive
powder concrete.
[30] B. Nematollahi, R.M. Saifulnaz, M.S. Jaafar, Y.L. Voo, A review on ultra-high
performance’ductile’concrete (UHPdC) technology, Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng. 2 (3)
(2012) 994.
[31] P.K. Mehta, P.J. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials,
McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
[32] Z.J. Yang, B.B. Li, J.Y. Wu, X-ray computed tomography images based phase-field
modeling of mesoscopic failure in concrete, Eng. Fract. Mech. 208 (2019)
151–170.
[33] L. Jaya, S. Doodala, T.S. Babu, A comparative study between reactive powder
concrete and High Performance Concrete, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Eng. Res.
(IJETER) 4 (8) (2016) 99–105.
[34] U.H.P. Concrete, M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Geisenhansluke (2004). Ultra high
performance concrete (UHPC).
[35] N. Prasad, G. Murali, Exploring the impact performance of functionally-graded
preplaced aggregate concrete incorporating steel and polypropylene fibres,
J. Build. Eng. 35 (2021) 102077.
[36] R. Pernicová, Chloride transport in ultra-high performance concrete, Int. J. Mater.
Metal. Eng. 8 (11) (2014) 1192–1195.
[37] A.M. Aguirre-Guerrero, R.A. Robayo-Salazar, R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, Corrosion
resistance of alkali-activated binary reinforced concrete based on natural volcanic
pozzolan exposed to chlorides, J. Build. Eng. 33 (2021) 101593.
[38] A.R.A. Javier, N.E. Lopez, J.B.P. Juanzon, Compressive strength and chloride
penetration tests of modified type IP cement concrete with rice ash, Proc. Eng.
171 (2017) 543–548.
[39] A.N. Givi, S.A. Rashid, F.N.A. Aziz, M.A.M. Salleh, Contribution of rice husk ash
to the properties of mortar and concrete: a review, J. Am. Sci. 6 (3) (2010)
157–165.
[40] R.J. Detwiler, J.I. Bhatty, S. Battacharja (1996). Supplementary cementing
materials for use in blended cements (No. R&D Bulletin RD112T).
[41] L. Huizhen, Y. Peiyu, For sustainable development: to produce cement by another
concept, Sustain. Develop. Concr. Technol. 103 (2004).
[42] H. Yildirim, T. Ilica, O. Sengul, Effect of cement type on the resistance of concrete
against chloride penetration, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (3) (2011) 1282–1288.
[43] ASTM, C. (2012). Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s
ability to resist chloride ion penetration. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4(7).
[44] M.Y. Kim, E.I. Yang, S.T. Yi (2007). Evaluation of chloride penetration
characteristics using a colorimetric method in concrete structures.
[45] S. Ahmad, I. Hakeem, M. Maslehuddin, Development of an optimum mixture of
ultra-high performance concrete, Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng. 20 (9) (2016)
1106–1126.
[46] P. Watanasrisin, K. Supatnantakul, T. Leelawat (2014). Three colorimetric
methods for evaluating chloride penetration of cracked and coated concrete. In
International Conference on Chemical, Civil and Environmental Engineering
(CCEE’2014) Nov (Vol. 18, No. 19, p. 2014).
[47] N. Otsuki, S. Nagataki, K. Nakashita, Evaluation of the AgNO3 solution spray
method for measurement of chloride penetration into hardened cementitious
matrix materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 7 (4) (1993) 195–201.
[48] M.Y. Kim, E.I. Yang, S.T. Yi, Application of the colorimetric method to chloride
diffusion evaluation in concrete structures, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013)
239–245.
[49] V. Baroghel-Bouny, P. Belin, M. Maultzsch, D. Henry, AgNO 3 spray tests:
advantages, weaknesses, and various applications to quantify chloride ingress
into concrete. Part 1: Non-steady-state diffusion tests and exposure to natural
conditions, Mater. Struct. 40 (8) (2007) 759.
[50] V. Baroghel-Bouny, P. Belin, M. Maultzsch, D. Henry, AgNO 3 spray tests:
advantages, weaknesses, and various applications to quantify chloride ingress
into concrete. Part 2: Non-steady-state migration tests and chloride diffusion
coefficients, Mater. Struct. 40 (8) (2007) 783.
[51] F. He, C. Shi, Q. Yuan, C. Chen, K. Zheng, AgNO3-based colorimetric methods for
measurement of chloride penetration in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1)
(2012) 1–8.
[52] E. Menéndez, V. Baroghel-Bouny. External sulphate attack–field aspects and lab.
tests.
[53] Q. Huang, L. Zhao, C. Zhao, D. Liu, C. Wang, Microstructure change of
Nanosilica–cement composites partially exposed to sulfate attack, Int. J. Concr.
Struct. Mater. 14 (1) (2020) 1–11.
[54] EN, B. (2011). Cement-Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria
for common cements (BS EN 197-1). British European Standards Specifications.
[55] Z. Liu, S. El-Tawil, W. Hansen, F. Wang, Effect of slag cement on the properties of
ultra-high performance concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 190 (2018) 830–837.
[56] J.R. Prusinski, M.L. Marceau, M.G. VanGeem, May). Life cycle inventory of slag
cement concrete, in: Eighth CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash,
Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, 2004, pp. 1–26.
[57] V.A. Samaranayake. Factorial design and optimization of UHPC with lightweight
sand.
[58] ASTM C1240-14, 2014. Standard specification for silica fume used in
cementitious mixtures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.
org/10.1520/C1240-14.
[59] Standard, A. S. T. M. (2012). C618-12a. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash
and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, 5.
19
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
[60] ASTM C494/C494M - 17, 2017. Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures
for Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/
10.1520/ C0494_C0494M-17.
[61] ASTM C33/C33M e 18, 2018. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0033_
C0033M-18.
[62] ASTM C143/C143M -15a. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, (2015).
[63] ASTM C192/C192M-16a. (2016). Standard practice for making and curing
concrete test specimens in the laboratory.
[64] EN, B. (2009). 12390-3. Testing hardened concrete. Compressive strength of test
specimens, 19.
[65] ASTM C-469, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s
Ratio of Concrete in Compression, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM, 2014, p. 5.
[66] BS EN 12390-8, Testing Hardened Concrete - Part 8: Depth of Penetration of
Water under Pressure, British Standards Institution, London, 2009.
[67] H. Alanazi, J. Hu, Y.R. Kim, Effect of slag, silica fume, and metakaolin on
properties and performance of alkali-activated fly ash cured at ambient
temperature, Constr. Build. Mater. 197 (2019) 747–756.
[68] M.L. Wilson, S.H. Kosmatka, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Portland
Cement Assn, Skokie, Ill, 2011.
[69] M.Z.N. Khan, Y. Hao, H. Hao, Synthesis of high strength ambient cured
geopolymer composite by using low calcium fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 125
(2016) 809–820.
[70] P. Richard, M. Cheyrezy, Composition of reactive powder concretes, Cem. Concr.
Res. 25 (7) (1995) 1501–1511.
[71] E. Grabowski, J.E. Gillott, Effect of replacement of silica flour with silica fume on
engineering properties of oilwell cements at normal and elevated temperatures
and pressures, Cem. Concr. Res. 19 (3) (1989) 333–344.
[72] M.A. Aldahdooh, Utilization of by-product materials in ultra high-performance
fiber reinforced cementitious composites, Cement Based Mater. 113 (2018).
[73] R. Yu, P. Spiesz, H.J.H. Brouwers, Development of an eco-friendly Ultra-High
Performance Concrete (UHPC) with efficient cement and mineral admixtures
uses, Cem. Concr. Compos. 55 (2015) 383–394.
[74] G. Constantinides, F.J. Ulm, The nanogranular nature of C-S–H, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 55 (1) (2007) 64–90.
[75] E.E. Berry, R.T. Hemmings, B.J. Cornelius, Mechanisms of hydration reactions in
high volume FA pastes and mortars, Cem. Concr. Comp. 12 (4) (1990) 253–261.
[76] R.F. Feldman, G.G. Carette, V.M. Malhotra, Studies on mechanics of development
of physical and mechanical properties of high-volume FA-cement pastes, Cem.
Concr. Comp. 12 (4) (1990) 245–251.
[77] S. Gupta, Development of ultra-high performance concrete incorporating blend of
slag and silica fume as cement replacement’, Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. Res 2 (1)
(2014) 35–51.
[78] M. Said-Mansour, E.H. Kadri, S. Kenai, M. Ghrici, R. Bennaceur, Influence of
calcined kaolin on mortar properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5) (2011)
2275–2282.
[79] P. Duan, Z. Shui, W. Chen, C. Shen, Effects of metakaolin, silica fume and slag on
pore structure, interfacial transition zone and compressive strength of concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 1–6.
[80] S. Barbhuiya, P. Chow, S. Memon, Microstructure, hydration and nanomechanical
properties of concrete containing metakaolin, Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015)
696–702.
[81] C. Arya, Y. Xu, Effect of cement type on chloride binding and corrosion of steel in
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (4) (1995) 893–902.
[82] S.A. Zareei, F. Ameri, P. Shoaei, N. Bahrami, Recycled ceramic waste high
strength concrete containing wollastonite particles and micro-silica: a
comprehensive experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater. 201 (2019) 11–32.
[83] K. Konieczna, K. Chilmon, W. Jackiewicz-Rek, Investigation of mechanical
properties, durability and microstructure of low-clinker high-performance
concretes incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag, siliceous fly ash
and silica fume, Appl. Sci. 11 (2) (2021) 830.
[84] M. Mazloom, A.A. Ramezanianpour, J.J. Brooks, Effect of silica fume on
mechanical properties of high-strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (4)
(2004) 347–357.
[85] D.M. Roy, Hydration, structure, and properties of blast furnace slag cements,
mortars, and concrete, J. Proc. 79 (6) (1982) 444–457.
[86] S. Erdem, A.R. Dawson, N.H. Thom, Impact load-induced micro-structural
damage and micro-structure associated mechanical response of concrete made
with different surface roughness and porosity aggregates, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (2)
(2012) 291–305.
[87] L. Sorelli, G. Constantinides, F.J. Ulm, F. Toutlemonde, The nano-mechanical
signature of ultra high performance concrete by statistical nanoindentation
techniques, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (12) (2008) 1447–1456.
[88] E.F. Irassar, V.L. Bonavetti, M. González, Microstructural study of sulfate attack
on ordinary and limestone Portland cements at ambient temperature, Cem. Concr.
Res. 33 (1) (2003) 31–41.
[89] R. Tixier, B. Mobasher, Modeling of damage in cement-based materials subjected
to external sulfate attack. I: Formulation, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (4) (2003)
305–313.
[90] B. Lothenbach, B. Bary, P. Le Bescop, T. Schmidt, N. Leterrier, Sulfate ingress in
Portland cement, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (8) (2010) 1211–1225.
[91] F. Bellmann, B. Möser, J. Stark, Influence of sulfate solution concentration on the
formation of gypsum in sulfate resistance test specimen, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2)
(2006) 358–363.
A.M. Tahwia et al.
[92] J.P. Broomfield, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete: Understanding, Investigation and
Repair, CRC Press, 2003.
[93] M. Amin, Properties of reactive powder concrete incorporating silica fume and
rice husk ash, Challenge J Concr. Res. Lett. 9 (4) (2018) 114, https://doi.org/
10.20528/cjcrl.2018.04.003.
[94] S.F.U. Ahmed, M. Maalej, P. Paramasivam, Flexural responses of hybrid
steel–polyethylene fiber reinforced cement composites containing high volume
fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (5) (2007) 1088–1097.
[95] J. Liu, C. Shi, Z. Wu, Hardening, microstructure, and shrinkage development of
UHPC: a review, J. Asian Concr. Feder. 5 (2) (2019) 1–19.
[96] M.M. Al-mashhadani, O. Canpolat, Y. Aygörmez, M. Uysal, S. Erdem, Mechanical
and microstructural characterization of fiber reinforced fly ash based geopolymer
composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 167 (2018) 505–513.
[97] C. Wang, C. Yang, F. Liu, C. Wan, X. Pu, Preparation of ultra-high performance
concrete with common technology and materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (4)
(2012) 538–544.
20
Construction and Building Materials 303 (2021) 124491
[98] F.J. Alaee, Retrofitting of concrete structures using high performance fibre
reinforced cementitious composite (HPFRCC), Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff
University), 2002.
[99] N. Van Tuan, G. Ye, K. van Breugel, O. Copuroglu, Hydration and microstructure
of ultra high performance concrete incorporating rice husk ash, Cem. Concr. Res.
41 (11) (2011) 1104–1111.
[100] J.P. Ollivier, J.C. Maso, B. Bourdette, Interfacial transition zone in concrete, Adv.
Cem. Based Mater. 2 (1) (1995) 30–38.
[101] Y.W. Chan, S.H. Chu, Effect of silica fume on steel fiber bond characteristics in
reactive powder concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (7) (2004) 1167–1172.
[102] M. Amin, A.M. Zeyad, B.A. Tayeh, I. Saad Agwa, Effects of nano cotton stalk and
palm leaf ashes on ultrahigh-performance concrete properties incorporating
recycled concrete aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 302 (2021) 124196.