Experimental evaluation demonstrates structural feasibility and carbon reductions of cold-bonded rice husk ash aggregates in concrete, highlighting scalable circular economy potential.
The sustainable management of rice husk ash (RHA), a silica-rich agricultural residue generated after biomass-based energy production, remains a significant environmental challenge because its utilisation as a cement substitute is generally limited to replacement levels of only 10–20%, restricting its large-scale valorisation. This study investigates an alternative utilisation pathway by developing cold-bonded RHA aggregates (RHAA) and evaluating their mechanical, durability, environmental, and large-scale utilisation potential as replacements for natural coarse aggregates in concrete. Concrete mixtures containing 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% volumetric RHAA replacement were produced using a binary binder comprising 40% ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Environmental performance was quantified through embodied energy (EE) and embodied carbon (EC). Increasing RHAA replacement progressively reduced concrete density, with the 100% replacement mixture exhibiting a 25.5% reduction and satisfying lightweight concrete requirements. Although mechanical properties and durability decreased because of the higher porosity of RHAA, the 25% replacement maintained structural-grade performance, water absorption below 10%, and chloride migration comparable to the binary binder concrete. Replacing ordinary Portland cement with GGBFS reduced EE and EC by 604.49 MJ/m 3 and 124.94 kgCO 2 /m 3 , respectively. Finally, 25% RHAA replacement was identified as the optimum level for structural concrete, whereas 100% replacement is suitable for lightweight non-structural applications such as hollow masonry blocks. An Indian case study further demonstrated that RHAA-based hollow masonry blocks could support the annual construction of approximately 2.54 million 1BHK houses, highlighting the considerable circular economy potential of this approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kopuru et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: