IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p6746-d401565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Alternative Home-Produced Concrete Strength with Economic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Rauf Shaker

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA)

  • Mayurkumar Bhalala

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA)

  • Qayoum Kargar

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA)

  • Byungik Chang

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA)

Abstract

Ready-mix concrete is not always affordable because it is less economical for small projects. This study shows an effort to introduce alternative home-produced concrete for small paving areas such as sidewalks, backyards, or fixing the existing concrete and discusses the economic evaluation of the alternative concrete for home purpose. The materials being used in this study are available locally or are easily purchased. The primary objective of the study is to analyze the compressive strength and conduct economic analysis of alternative home-produced concrete with different mix designs. Wood ash, fly ash, and recycled aggregate concretes are the alternative concrete types discussed in this study. Fly ash can replace Portland cement up to 30% without losing significant compressive strength of the concrete. Furthermore, fly ash is less expensive than Portland cement and can reduce the cost of concrete by saving approximately 15%. Wood ash can be used up to 25% in concrete without losing considerable strength which saves approximately 13% of cement cost. The use of recycled concrete aggregates saves only about 1% CO 2 emission compared to regular concrete while fly ash saves more than 28.5% and wood ash saves almost 24.5%. They can replace natural aggregates up to 100%, but there is only a 5% saving. In addition, an equivalent cost of USD 13.47 for one cubic yard of concrete could be saved by using 30% fly ash concrete when considering reduced emitted CO 2eq from the material production.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Rauf Shaker & Mayurkumar Bhalala & Qayoum Kargar & Byungik Chang, 2020. "Evaluation of Alternative Home-Produced Concrete Strength with Economic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6746-:d:401565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6746/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/6746/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel Angel Sanjuán & Cristina Argiz & Pedro Mora & Aniceto Zaragoza, 2020. "Carbon Dioxide Uptake in the Roadmap 2050 of the Spanish Cement Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, July.
    2. How-Ji Chen & Neng-Hao Shih & Chung-Hao Wu & Shu-Ken Lin, 2019. "Effects of the Loss on Ignition of Fly Ash on the Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Aysun Özkan & Zerrin Günkaya & Gülden Tok & Levent Karacasulu & Melike Metesoy & Müfide Banar & Alpagut Kara, 2016. "Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Magnesia Spinel Brick Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qingfu Li & Jing Hu, 2020. "Mechanical and Durability Properties of Cement-Stabilized Recycled Concrete Aggregate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viktoria Mannheim & Weronika Kruszelnicka, 2022. "Energy-Model and Life Cycle-Model for Grinding Processes of Limestone Products," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Mohammed K. H. Radwan & Chiu Chuen Onn & Kim Hung Mo & Soon Poh Yap & Ren Jie Chin & Sai Hin Lai, 2022. "Sustainable ternary cement blends with high-volume ground granulated blast furnace slag–fly ash," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 4751-4785, April.
    3. Sergey Fomenko & Sanat Tolendiuly & Ahmet Turan & Adil Akishev, 2022. "Production of Refractory Bricks through Combustion Synthesis from Metallurgical Wastes and the Thermo-Physical Properties of the Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Oksana Marinina & Marina Nevskaya & Izabela Jonek-Kowalska & Radosław Wolniak & Mikhail Marinin, 2021. "Recycling of Coal Fly Ash as an Example of an Efficient Circular Economy: A Stakeholder Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    5. Dong-Jun Yeom & Eun-Ji Na & Mi-Young Lee & Yoo-Jun Kim & Young Suk Kim & Chung-Suk Cho, 2017. "Performance Evaluation and Life Cycle Cost Analysis Model of a Gondola-Type Exterior Wall Painting Robot," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Jan Pešta & Tereza Pavlů & Kristina Fořtová & Vladimír Kočí, 2020. "Sustainable Masonry Made from Recycled Aggregates: LCA Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Francesco Boenzi & Joaquín Ordieres-Meré & Raffaello Iavagnilio, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment Comparison of Two Refractory Brick Product Systems for Ladle Lining in Secondary Steelmaking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Apichonnabutr, W. & Tiwary, A., 2018. "Trade-offs between economic and environmental performance of an autonomous hybrid energy system using micro hydro," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 891-904.
    9. Jaksada Thumrongvut & Sittichai Seangatith & Chayakrit Phetchuay & Cherdsak Suksiripattanapong, 2022. "Comparative Experimental Study of Sustainable Reinforced Portland Cement Concrete and Geopolymer Concrete Beams Using Rice Husk Ash," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:6746-:d:401565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.