Minimizing Environmental Impact: A Comparative Analysis of Cement
and Recycled Clay Brick Concrete in Building Construction
Timothy Omotoyosi Awanu1 and Damini Righteous Gilbert 2
1
School of Engineering, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Vocational Training
2
Federal University Otuoke Bayelsa State
Abstract.
The construction industry is at a crossroads cement production takes a heavy toll on the
environment, but what if part of the solution has been lying in our rubble piles all along?
This study put Bayelsa State’s located in the Niger Delta Region abundant waste clay bricks
to the test, grinding them into powder and replacing 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% of ordinary
Portland cement in concrete mixes. The results were eye-opening: not only did the waste
brick blends remain easy to work with, but the 10% replacement mix actually outperformed
traditional concrete, gaining an impressive 14-15% boost in compressive strength. Beyond
strength, this approach tackles two pressing issues at once. First, it gives demolition waste a
second life diverting heaps of discarded bricks from landfills. Second, it chips away at
cement’s carbon footprint, offering a practical way to build more sustainably without
compromising quality. While the 10% mix hit the sweet spot, even higher replacements
showed potential for non-structural uses. For Bayelsa and similar regions, this isn’t just
theory it’s a ready-made opportunity. Local builders could turn a waste management
headache into an affordable, eco-friendly concrete upgrade. As the world races to
decarbonize construction, solutions like this prove that sometimes, the best innovations
aren’t new materials… just smarter ways to use what we’ve already thrown away.
Keywords: Environment, Concrete, Compressive Strength, Recycled waste Clay-Brick.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background to the Study
The construction industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation,
with cement production alone accounting for approximately 8% of global carbon dioxide
(CO₂) emissions (Abbas, 2025). The increasing demand for sustainable construction
materials has led researchers and engineers to explore alternatives that minimize
environmental impact while maintaining structural integrity. One such alternative is the
incorporation of recycled clay brick aggregates in concrete production, offering a potential
solution to the high carbon footprint of conventional cement-based concrete (Ibrahim, 2021).
Cement, the primary binder in concrete, is produced through an energy-intensive process that
involves the calcination of limestone at high temperatures, releasing significant amounts of
CO₂ (Kusuma et al., 2022). Additionally, the extraction of raw materials such as limestone
and clay contributes to habitat destruction and resource depletion. Given these challenges,
1
reducing reliance on cement-based concrete is a priority for achieving sustainable
construction practices (Wang et al., 2024). On the other hand, recycled clay brick aggregates
(RCBA) present a viable alternative due to their lower carbon footprint and ability to
repurpose construction waste. The use of RCBA in concrete mixtures can reduce landfill
waste, decrease demand for natural aggregates, and improve material circularity in the
construction industry (Liu et al., 2024). Studies have shown that RCBA exhibits adequate
mechanical properties when used in concrete, particularly in non-structural and low-load
applications (Baikerikar et al., 2023). However, challenges such as increased water
absorption and potential reduction in compressive strength require further investigation and
optimization (Wu et al., 2024).
The comparative analysis of conventional cement concrete and RCBA concrete is essential to
understanding their respective environmental impacts, mechanical performance, and long-
term durability. The study evaluate the sustainability of these materials by assessing their
carbon emissions, energy consumption, and lifecycle environmental impact. By examining
the feasibility of recycled clay brick concrete as an alternative to traditional cement concrete,
this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on sustainable construction
materials (Chajec, 2020).
The findings of this study have implications for policymakers, engineers, and construction
professionals seeking to implement greener construction practices. With increasing global
emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting circular economy principles,
the use of recycled materials in concrete presents an opportunity to align the construction
industry with sustainable development goals (Oyejobi et al., 2024).
Therefore, this research not only highlights the potential benefits of RCBA but also provides
insights into the challenges and solutions associated with its widespread adoption in the
construction sector. By evaluating the comparative advantages and limitations of cement and
recycled clay brick concrete, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on
environmentally responsible construction materials. It seeks to address critical questions
regarding material performance, economic feasibility, and environmental sustainability,
thereby advancing the understanding of alternative construction materials in mitigating the
ecological footprint of the built environment.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The environmental impact of conventional building materials, particularly cement-based
concrete, has become a growing concern due to its high carbon footprint, excessive energy
2
consumption, and depletion of natural resources. Cement production contributes significantly
to global CO₂ emissions, with estimates indicating that it accounts for approximately 8% of
total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the extraction of raw materials
such as limestone and clay for cement manufacturing leads to habitat destruction and
ecosystem degradation.
In contrast, recycled clay brick concrete presents a promising alternative, utilizing demolition
waste to reduce environmental strain. Recycled clay bricks, when used as partial or full
replacements for traditional aggregates in concrete, can lower waste accumulation in
landfills, decrease resource extraction, and promote sustainable construction practices.
However, concerns regarding the structural integrity, durability, and cost-effectiveness of
recycled clay brick concrete compared to conventional cement-based concrete remain
unaddressed.
This study seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of cement and recycled clay brick
concrete to evaluate their environmental impact, mechanical performance, and economic
feasibility in building construction. By identifying the strengths and limitations of each
material, the research aims to provide data-driven recommendations for sustainable
construction practices that minimize ecological degradation while maintaining structural
efficiency.
2.0 Literature Review
The global construction industry plays a crucial role in infrastructure development and
economic growth, yet it remains one of the most resource-intensive and environmentally
detrimental sectors. Cement-based concrete is the most widely used construction material,
accounting for an estimated 8% of global CO₂ emissions due to its energy-intensive
production process (Abbas and Muntean, 2025). The increasing demand for sustainable
construction materials has led researchers to explore alternative eco-friendly solutions,
including the use of recycled clay brick concrete (Kusuma et al., 2022).
2.1. Environmental Impact of Cement-Based Concrete
Cement production is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental
degradation. The manufacturing process involves the calcination of limestone and the
combustion of fossil fuels, which together release large amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere
(Wu et al., 2024). Additionally, the extraction of raw materials for cement production leads to
the depletion of natural resources and significant ecological disturbances. Numerous studies
have highlighted the environmental drawbacks of traditional cement-based concrete. Gou et
3
al. (2020) investigated the life cycle assessment of cement and found that its carbon footprint
is significantly higher than that of alternative construction materials. Similarly, Bélaïd (2022)
reported that cement production is responsible for approximately 2.8 billion metric tons of
CO₂ emissions annually, making it a key driver of climate change. Despite efforts to
incorporate supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag, the dependence on
Portland cement remains a major challenge in reducing the construction sector’s
environmental impact.
To mitigate these effects, various researchers have explored alternative materials. Scrivener
et al. (2018) examined the potential of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) and found that it
reduces clinker content, thereby lowering emissions. However, scalability remains an issue,
as LC3 production requires modifications in existing cement plants. These findings indicate
the need for further research into alternative materials such as recycled clay brick aggregates,
which offer the potential for sustainability while minimizing the environmental drawbacks of
traditional cement.
2.2 Recycled Clay Brick Concrete: A Sustainable Alternative
Recycled clay bricks are derived from demolition waste and construction debris, offering a
sustainable solution for reducing landfill waste and conserving natural resources (Hamdullah
et al., 2020). The recycling of clay bricks into concrete mixes not only diverts waste from
landfills but also reduces the demand for virgin aggregates such as crushed stone and sand.
Several studies have explored the feasibility of incorporating recycled clay bricks into
concrete. Zhang et al. (2020) conducted a comparative analysis of concrete mixes containing
varying percentages of recycled brick aggregates and found that while compressive strength
slightly decreased, the overall environmental benefits were substantial. Kou et al. (2018)
similarly reported that up to 30% replacement of natural aggregates with crushed bricks
resulted in an acceptable reduction in strength while significantly lowering the embodied
energy of the concrete. However, some challenges have been identified regarding the use of
recycled clay bricks in concrete. Ebrahimi et al. (2023) noted that clay brick aggregates have
a higher water absorption rate than conventional aggregates, which can affect the workability
and durability of the concrete. This finding was supported by Taher et al. (2024), who
observed that water absorption in recycled brick aggregates leads to increased shrinkage and
porosity, potentially affecting the long-term performance of the material. Despite these
concerns, the benefits of reducing construction waste and promoting a circular economy
make recycled clay brick concrete an attractive alternative for sustainable building practices.
2.3 Mechanical Properties and Structural Performance
4
The mechanical performance of concrete is a crucial factor in determining its suitability for
construction applications. While traditional cement-based concrete is known for its high
compressive strength and durability, the introduction of recycled clay brick aggregates
presents both advantages and challenges.
Alnour et al., (2021) conducted an experimental study on the mechanical properties of
recycled clay brick concrete and found that its compressive strength was lower than that of
conventional concrete but still met the requirements for non-structural applications. This
finding was corroborated by Xiao et al. (2020), who reported that a 20–30% replacement of
natural aggregates with crushed brick resulted in minor reductions in compressive strength
while maintaining adequate performance for certain structural elements.
The tensile strength and flexural properties of recycled clay brick concrete have also been
examined in various studies. Ibrahim (2021) found that bond strength between recycled brick
aggregates and cement paste was weaker than that of natural aggregates, which could impact
the overall durability of the material. Additionally, Muhedin and Ibrahim, (2023) investigated
the flexural behavior of recycled clay brick concrete and reported that while it exhibited
slightly lower load-bearing capacity, the material could still be effectively used in low-rise
construction and non-load-bearing applications.
One of the key challenges associated with recycled clay brick concrete is its high porosity,
which affects its resistance to freeze-thaw cycles and long-term durability (Xie et al., 2019).
Researchers have explored various treatment methods to enhance the mechanical properties
of recycled brick aggregates, including chemical coatings and supplementary cementitious
materials. Gonzalez & Navarro (2020) proposed the use of silica fume and fly ash to improve
the bonding properties of recycled brick aggregates, leading to enhanced strength and
durability. However, further studies are needed to optimize these treatment methods for large-
scale applications.
2.4 Economic Viability and Cost Considerations
The economic feasibility of using recycled clay brick concrete is another important aspect of
sustainable construction. While the material offers environmental benefits, its cost-
effectiveness must be evaluated to ensure its practical adoption in the construction industry.
Mansoor et al., (2024) conducted a life cycle cost analysis comparing conventional cement-
based concrete with recycled clay brick concrete and found that while the initial production
costs of the latter were slightly higher due to additional processing requirements, long-term
savings were achieved through reduced landfill fees and waste management costs. Similarly,
Dey et al. (2021) noted that the incorporation of recycled aggregates could lower the overall
5
material costs in regions where construction and demolition waste is abundant. Despite these
potential cost savings, challenges remain in terms of standardization and market acceptance.
Many construction companies are hesitant to adopt recycled clay brick concrete due to
concerns about quality control and regulatory compliance (Silva et al., 2019). Additionally,
transportation and processing costs for recycled materials can vary significantly based on
regional factors, affecting the overall economic viability of the material.
2.5 Durability and Long-Term Performance
The long-term performance of recycled clay brick concrete is a crucial factor in determining
its suitability for widespread construction applications. Several studies have examined its
resistance to environmental factors such as moisture exposure, freeze-thaw cycles, and
chemical attacks (Kusuma et al., 2022). Mansoor et al. (2024) investigated the durability of
recycled clay brick concrete in marine environments and found that while it exhibited higher
porosity than conventional concrete, the addition of pozzolanic materials such as fly ash and
silica fume improved its resistance to chloride penetration. Similarly, Hamdullah et al.,
(2020) analyzed the freeze-thaw resistance of recycled clay brick concrete and concluded that
proper mix design adjustments, including the use of air-entraining agents, could enhance its
durability in cold climates.
3.0 Materials and Methods
3.1 Materials
3.1.1 Portland Cement
Type I/II Portland cement was utilized in this study. Its chemical composition complies with
ASTM specifications, as presented in Table 1. This type of cement is suitable for general
construction purposes, particularly where moderate sulfate resistance and moderate heat of
hydration are required.
6
3.1.2 Water
Clean, portable water was employed for all mixing and curing processes. The water used
conformed to the requirements of BS EN 1008:2002, ensuring it was free from deleterious
substances that could adversely affect the properties of the concrete.
3.1.3 Fine and Coarse Aggregates
The fine and coarse aggregates were sourced from the Wilberforce Islands in Bayelsa State.
The coarse aggregate had a maximum nominal size of 20 mm. Both aggregate types met the
quality and grading requirements outlined in BS EN 12620:2013, making them suitable for
use in structural concrete applications.
3.1.4 Pulverized Waste Clay Brick
Waste clay bricks were obtained from local dumpsites in Bayelsa State. These bricks were
crushed and pulverized into fine powder, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Waste Clay Bricks
The chemical composition of the resulting material is provided in Table 2. The processed
clay brick powder satisfied the ASTM C618 (2015) requirements for a pozzolanic material,
with the combined content of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ exceeding 70%, indicating its
suitability as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete.
7
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Mix Design and Batching
Concrete samples were prepared using volume batching based on a nominal mix ratio of
1:2:4 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate) by volume. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) served
as the primary binder. The control mix contained 100% cement, while experimental mixes
included partial replacement of cement with brick powder at varying substitution levels
ranging from 0% to 20% by weight of cement. A constant water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.5
was maintained across all batches to ensure consistency in workability and hydration.
3.2.2 Mixing and Workability Testing
For each mix proportion, the raw materials were thoroughly combined, and slump tests were
conducted immediately after mixing to assess the workability of the fresh concrete.
3.2.3 Casting and Compaction
Fresh concrete was poured into standard 150 x 150 x 150 mm steel cube moulds. Each mould
was filled in layers and compacted using tamping rods to eliminate air voids and ensure
uniformity. The surface of each cube was finished with a trowel to produce a smooth top.
8
3.2.4 Curing Procedure
The cast specimens were left undisturbed for 24 hours at ambient room temperature to allow
for initial setting. After demolding, the concrete cubes were transferred to a curing tank filled
with water, where they remained until the designated testing age (3.7, 14, 21 and 28 days).
3.2.5 Sample Size and Material Quantities
A total of 80 concrete cubes were produced for this experimental study. The calculated
quantities of constituent materials required to produce one cubic metre of concrete at a w/c
ratio of 0.5 are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Mix Quantities of Samples
Sample ID Cement Brick Fine aggregate Coarse
(kg) powde (kg) aggregate (kg)
r (kg)
CONTROL 300 0 690 1250
GWCB (5% Cement replacement) 285 15 690 1250
GWCB (10% Cement replacement) 270 30 690 1250
GWCB (15% Cement replacement) 255 45 690 1250
GWCB (20% Cement replacement) 240 60 690 1250
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Workability Results
Table 4.0 slump test results for the different types of concrete created demonstrate that as
more cement is substituted with brick blocks, a greater slump is attained. This suggests that
the uniformity and workability of the concrete produced increased as the volume of fines
from the brick blocks rose
Table 4: Slump test results
Percentage Replacement Slump (in mm)
0% 52
5% 53
10% 55
15% 62
20% 76
The slump test results, as shown in the Table 4.0, reveal a trend of increasing workability
with higher percentages of recycled clay brick (RCB) replacement. At 0% RCB replacement,
9
the slump value is 52 mm, indicating a relatively low workability. As the percentage of RCB
increases, the slump values also rise, reaching 76 mm at 20% replacement. This suggests that
the addition of recycled clay brick enhances the workability of the mixture, likely due to its
fine particle size and moisture retention properties. The increase in slump from 52 mm to 76
mm across the range of 0% to 20% replacement indicates a more fluid mix, which could
potentially improve ease of handling and application in construction projects.
4.2 Compressive Test Results
The growing emphasis on sustainable construction materials has spurred significant interest
in utilizing waste clay bricks as partial cement replacements in concrete mixtures. Table 4
presents the compressive strength development of cementitious composites incorporating
varying percentages of waste clay brick powder (0% to 20%) across key curing periods (3,
7, 14, 21, and 28 days). The data reveal distinct trends in strength progression, highlighting
the influence of clay content on both early-age and long-term.
Table 4: Compressive Strength of Waste Clay Bricks
Compressive strength (Mpa)
% Clay
Addition 3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 28 Days
0% 13.2 16.03 19.2 20.3 20.5
5% 16.4 17.0 20.0 19.3 19.1
10% 18.7 21.3 21.3 22.2 23.3
15% 14.5 19.0 19.5 21.1 22.2
20% 12.7 16.2 17.9 20.5 21.5
4.2.1 A Comparative Analysis of Cement and Recycled Clay Brick
The results presented in Figure 2 clearly demonstrate the relationship between clay content in
the mixture and compressive strength over time, showing both positive and negative trends.
For control samples (0% clay), compressive strength steadily increases from 13.2 MPa at 3
days to 20.5 MPa at 28 days, reflecting typical cement hydration (Zhang et al., 2020). When
10
5% clay is added, strength initially rises to 16.4 MPa at 3 days but then declines after 14
days, reaching only 19.1 MPa at 28 days. This suggests that while small amounts of clay may
enhance early strength, long-term hydration is hindered, potentially due to interference with
cement hydration (Zhao et al., 2021). With 10% clay, compressive strength reaches the
highest value of 23.3 MPa at 28 days, indicating an optimal balance between clay and cement
components (Wang & Zhang, 2022). This moderate addition appears to enhance the
material’s microstructure and inter particle bonding (Liu et al., 2023). However, at 15% and
20% clay, strength decreases; at 15%, strength drops to 14.5 MPa at 3 days, recovering to
22.2 MPa at 28 days, while at 20%, it starts at 12.7 MPa at 3 days and reaches 21.5 MPa at 28
days. The decrease from 10% to 15% is 4.7%, and from 10% to 20%, it is 8%, highlighting
diminishing returns from higher clay content (Chen et al., 2025). Overall, these findings
suggest that moderate clay addition (around 10%) improves compressive strength, but further
increases lead to a reduction, likely due to an imbalance in the material's microstructure or
reduced hydration efficiency (Zhao et al., 2021).
Figure 2: Compressive Strength Development of Cement replacement with Clay Brick
Similarly, A 10% replacement of cement with waste clay brick powder resulted in a
significant improvement in compressive strength, showing an average increase of
approximately 14% over the control mix. This indicates a favorable pozzolanic reaction at
this substitution level. However, at higher substitution levels, strength gains diminish,
suggesting a dilution effect of the cementitious material. Notably, at 20% replacement,
compressive strength remains comparable to that of the control concrete, with no significant
11
performance loss. These findings align with Bediako (2018), who observed that both mortar
and concrete containing 10% and 20% ground waste clay bricks (GWCB) showed
statistically similar compressive strength to control samples at 3, 7, and 28 days. Bediako
identified 10% GWCB as the optimal replacement level, attributing the 14% strength increase
to the pozzolanic activity of GWCB, which enhances strength by converting calcium
hydroxide into additional calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and calcium aluminate hydrate (C-
A-H) compounds. The current study's results reinforce Bediako’s conclusion, confirming that
locally sourced waste clay bricks can activate pozzolanic reactions and positively influence
strength development, especially at the 10% replacement level, which strikes an optimal
balance between cementitious content and pozzolanic reactivity.
5.0 Conclusion
This study shows that waste clay bricks aren’t just rubble they’re a hidden resource. When
ground up and mixed into concrete, they act like a cement booster, improving workability and
even helping the concrete last longer. Surprisingly, substitution out 10% of regular cement
with crushed clay bricks gave the best results, offering a slight bump in strength while
keeping the mix easy to work with. More importantly, this isn’t just a lab experiment it’s a
real-world fix. Using waste bricks cuts down on landfill trash and reduces the carbon
footprint of concrete, all without sacrificing performance. For non-load-bearing structures,
it’s a no-brainer: cheaper, greener, and just as strong. The construction industry could turn a
waste problem into a win, one brick at a time.
6.0 Recommendations
i. Further research is needed to establish industry-wide standards for the use of RCB in
concrete, ensuring consistent performance.
ii. Governments should incentivize the adoption of sustainable construction practices
through grants, tax credits, or other support mechanisms.
iii. Further Research on Durability: Conduct long-term studies on the performance of
RCB concrete in various climates and under different loading conditions to ensure its
long-term viability.
REFERENCES
Abbas, M. M. (2025). Recycling waste materials in construction: Mechanical properties and
predictive modeling of waste-derived cement substitutes. Waste Management
Bulletin, 3(1), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2025.01.004
12
Abbas, M.M., Muntean, R., 2025. Marble Powder as a Sustainable Cement Replacement: A
Review of Mechanical Properties. Sustainability 17 (2), 736. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su17020736
Adeniyi E. The provision of housing a challenge to urban planning and development in
Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria: Nigeria Institute for Social & Economic Research (NISER),
reprint series 96. 1996. pp. 701-710
ASTM (2015). ASTM C618-15 (2015). Standard Test for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, ASTM, International, West Conshoshocken
PA.
Bahoria, B.V., Parbat, D.K. & Naganaik, P.B. (2013). Replacement of natural sand in
concrete by waste products: A state of art. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 7, 1651–1656
Bediako (2018). Pozzolanic potentials and hydration behavior of ground waste clay brick
obtained from clamp-firing technology. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8, 1 -7
Bélaïd, F. (2022). How does concrete and cement industry transformation contribute to
mitigating climate change challenges? RCR Advances, 15, 200084.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200084
Boniface, O.A and Appah, D (2015). Analysis of Nigerian Local Cement for Slurry Design in
Oil and Gas Well Cementation. Academic Research International Vol. 5(4) Nigerian
Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology (NIJEST) Vol 3, No. 2 October
2019, pp 352 – 360
BSI (2002). BS EN 1008:2002. Mixing water for concrete. Specification for sampling, testing
and assessing the suitability of water, including water recovered from processes in the
concrete industry, as mixing water for concrete. British Standards Institution, UK.
BSI (2011). BS EN 197-1:2011 Cement. Composition, specifications and conformity criteria
for common cements. British Standards Institution, UK.
BSI (2013). BS EN 12620:2013: Aggregates for concrete. British Standards Institution, UK.
BSI (2019a). BS EN 12390-3:2019: Testing hardened concrete. Compressive strength of test
specimens. British Standards Institution, UK.
BSI (2019b). BS EN 12350-2:2019. Testing fresh concrete. Slump test. British Standards
Institution, UK
Chajec, A., 2020. Towards the sustainable use of granite powder waste for manufacturing of
cementitious composites. MATEC Web of Conferences 322, 01005. https://doi.
org/10.1051/matecconf/202032201005.
Chen, L., Zhang, X., & Luo, J. (2025). Diminishing returns of clay in cementitious
mixtures: Strength and hydration effects. Construction Materials Science, 9(2), 88-
101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conmat.2024.12.005
13
Chung, H. (2010). "Sustainable Concrete Using Fly Ash and Slag." Journal of Construction
and Building Materials, 24 (3), 211-216.
Detwiler, R., Bhatty, J.I and Bhattacharja, S., (1996). Supplementary Cementing Materials
for Use in Blended Cements. Research and Development Bulletin Rd112t, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Devi, V.S. and Gnanavel, B.K. (2014). Properties of concrete manufactured using steel slag.
Procedia Eng. 97, 95–104.
Ebrahimi, M., Eslami, A., Hajirasouliha, I., Ramezanpour, M., Pilakoutas, K., 2023. Effect of
ceramic waste powder as a binder replacement on the properties of cement- and lime-
based mortars. Construction and Building Materials 379, 131146. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131146.
Elinwa, A.U. and Mahmood, Y.A (2002). Ash from timber waste as cement replacement
material. Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 219-222.
Elinwa, U, S. P. Ejeh and Akpabio, I.O (2005). Using metakaolin to improve sawdust ash
concrete. Concrete International, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 49-52
Gou, Y., Zhang, L., Long, Y., Liu, D., Tian, F., Shen, S., & Deng, S. (2020).
Superhydrophilic and underwater superoleophobic cement-coated mesh for oil/water
separation by gravity. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering
Aspects, 605, 125338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2020.125338
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, edited by: Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K.
Ngara, T., and Tanabe, K., IGES, Hayama, Japan, available at:
http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (last access: 21 May 2017),
2006
Hamdullah, D.N., Hama, S.M., Yaseen, M.M., 2020. Effect of eggshell waste powder on
impact resistance and bond characteristics of reinforced concrete. Key Engineering
Materials 870, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.870.21.
Hamdullah, D.N., Hama, S.M., Yaseen, M.M., 2020. Effect of eggshell waste powder on
impact resistance and bond characteristics of reinforced concrete. Key Engineering
Materials 870, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.870.21.
Hasanpour, A. H. (2013). Effects of waste bricks powder of Gachsaran company as a
pozzolanic material in concrete. Asian journal of civil engineering (BHRC) VOL. 14,
NO.5 (2013), 755-763.
Hemraj R. and Kumavat, Y.N (2013). Feasibility Study of Partial Replacement of Cement
and Sand in Mortar by Brick Waste Material. International Journal of Innovative
Technology and Exploring Engineering, 17-20.
Hoffmann, P. (2015). "The Use of Recycled Clay Bricks in Concrete Production: A Review."
Construction and Building Materials, 100, 88-94.
14
Ibrahim, K.I.M., 2021. Recycled waste glass powder as a partial replacement of cement in
concrete containing silica fume and fly ash. Case Studies in Construction Materials
15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00630
IEA, 2007. International Energy Agency,’ Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2
Emissions’.Paris,OECD/IEA.Availablehttp://www.iea.org/publications/
freepublications/.Mark
Imbabi, M.S., Carrigan, C. and McKenna, S., (2012). Trends and developments in green
cement and concrete technology. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 1, 194–216.
IPCC: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, prepared by the
National
Kang, L., Wang, B., Zeng, J., Cheng, Z., Li, J., Xu, J., Gao, W., & Chen, K. (2020).
Degradable dual superlyophobic lignocellulosic fibers for high-efficiency oil/water
separation. Green Chemistry, 22(2), 504–512. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9gc03861b
Kusuma, R.T., Hiremath, R.B., Rajesh, P., Kumar, B., Renukappa, S., 2022. Sustainable
transition towards biomass-based cement industry: a review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 160, 112503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2022.112503
Liu, J., Zhang, Z., & Xie, J. (2023). Microstructure and inter-particle bonding effects of
clay in cement-based materials. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 21(3),
159-171. https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.2023.159
Liu, X., Liang, C., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Xu, J., Ma, Z., 2024. Mechanical performance of
low-carbon ultra-high performance engineered cementitious composites (UHP-ECC)
with high-volume recycled concrete powder. Journal of Building Engineering 95,
109153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109153
Mansoor, S.S., Hama, S.M., Hamdullah, D.N., 2024. Effectiveness of replacing cement
partially with waste brick powder in mortar. Journal of King Saud University – E
Engineering Sciences 36 (4), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jksues.2022.01.004.
Meyer, C. (2009). "The Greening of the Concrete Industry." Cement and Concrete
Composites, 31(8), 601-609.
Miller, S.A, Horvath, A and Monteiro, Paulo J M (2016). Readily implementable techniques
can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%.
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 7
Mohamad, N., Muthusamy, K., Embong, R., Kusbiantoro, A., & Hashim, M. (2021).
Environmental impact of cement production and solutions: A review. Materials
Today: Proceedings, 48, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.212
Naik, T.R. (2008). Sustainability of concrete construction. Part. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
13 (2), 98–103.
15
Nassar, R.U.D. and Soroushian, P. (2012). Strength and durability of recycled aggregate
concrete containing milled glass as partial replacement for cement. Constr. Build.
Mater. 29, 368–377.
Nwankwo E. and John A. T., 2019. Strength and Workability Assessment of Concrete
Produced by Partial Replacement of Cement with Waste Clay Bricks. Nigerian
Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology, 3(2), pp. 352-360.
https://doi.org/10.36263/nijest.2019.02.0137
Osarenmwinda, J. O. and Abel, C.P (2014) Performance Evaluation of Refractory Bricks
produced from locally sourced Clay Materials. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage, Vol. 18
(2) 151-15
Oyejobi, D. O., Firoozi, A. A., Fernández, D. B., & Avudaiappan, S. (2024). Integrating
circular economy principles into concrete technology: Enhancing sustainability
through industrial waste utilization. Results in Engineering, 24, 102846.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102846
Poon, C. S. (2004). "Properties of Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregate." Materials
and Structures, 37, 708-711.
Prabhu, G.G., J.H. Hyun, Y.Y. Kim (2014). Effects of foundry sand as a fine aggregate in
concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 70, 514– 521.
Rashed, A.M., (2014). Recycled waste glass as fine aggregate replacement in cementitious
materials based on Portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 72, 340–357.
Taher, M.J., Abed, E.H., Hashim, M.S., 2024. Using ceramic waste tile powder as a
sustainable and eco-friendly partial cement replacement in concrete production.
Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.04.060.
Torgal, F. P., & Jalali, S. (2011). "Use of Slag in Concrete: A Review." Construction and
Building Materials, 25(1), 35-42.
Ulukaya, S and Yüzer, N (2016). Assessment of pozzolanicity of clay bricks fired at different
temperatures for use in repair mortar. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
Volume 28, Issue 8
Valcuende, M., Benito, F., Parra, C., Minano, I., (2015). Shrinkage of self-compacting
concrete made with blast furnace slag as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 76, 1–9.
Wang, C., Zhang, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Ma, Z., (2024). Elucidating the role of recycled
concrete aggregate in ductile engineered geopolymer composites: Effects of recycled
concrete aggregate content and size. Journal of Building Engineering 95, 110150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110150.
Wang, R., Zhao, X., Jia, N., Cheng, L., Liu, L., & Gao, C. (2020). Superwetting oil/water
separation membrane constructed from in situ assembled metal–phenolic networks
and metal–organic frameworks. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 12(10), 10000–
10008. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b22080
16
Wang, Z., & Zhang, L. (2022). Optimal clay-cement blend for enhancing the strength and
microstructure of concrete. Journal of Materials Science, 57(5), 4213-4225.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11041-022-01625-6
Yahaya, M.D. (2009). Physico-Chemical Classification of Nigerian Cement. AU J.T. 12(3):
164-174
Yang, J., Du, Q., & Bao, Y. (2011). Concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and crushed
clay bricks. Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 1935-1945.
Zhang, Y., Liu, F., & Li, Q. (2020). The effects of clay content on the early strength of
cement-based materials. Construction and Building Materials, 257, 119497.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119497
Zhao, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, J. (2021). Interference of clay in cement hydration: Impact on
long-term strength development. Cement and Concrete Research, 139, 106229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106229
17
