Sustainable alternatives to cement in structural engineering

  • Guosong Yang

    School of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology, Nanjing 211800, China

Article ID: 3980
Keywords: sustainable construction, cement alternatives, fly ash, geopolymers, structural concrete

Abstract

The environmental impact of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) production, particularly its high carbon emissions and energy consumption, has prompted the structural engineering community to seek more sustainable alternatives. This review examines a range of materials that can partially or fully replace OPC, including industrial by-products (e.g., fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag), geopolymers, natural pozzolans, and recycled construction waste. The article evaluates these alternatives in terms of their mechanical performance, durability, workability, and suitability for structural applications. Environmental and economic assessments, including life cycle analysis and cost considerations, are also discussed to provide a holistic view of sustainability. While many alternatives show promising performance and environmental benefits, wider adoption depends on overcoming technical challenges, regulatory gaps, and market inertia. This review highlights the need for integrated efforts in research, policy, and practice to transition toward more sustainable materials in structural engineering.

Published
2025-12-04
How to Cite
Yang , G. (2025). Sustainable alternatives to cement in structural engineering. Building Engineering, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.59400/be3980
Section
Article

References

[1]Kupwade-Patil K, De Wolf C, Chin S, et al. Impact of Embodied Energy on materials/buildings with partial replacement of ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) by natural Pozzolanic Volcanic Ash. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 177: 547–554. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.234

[2]Courland R. Concrete Planet: The Strange and Fascinating Story of the World’s Most Common Man-Made Material. Rowman & Littlefield; 2022.

[3]Lemeshev M, Bereziuk O, Cherepakha D, et al. Complex binder based on industrial man-made waste. In: Technical and Agricultural Sciences in Modern Realities: Problems, Prospects and Solutions. International Science Group; 2023, pp. 51–59.

[4]Soomro M, Tam VWY, Jorge Evangelista AC. Production of cement and its environmental impact. In: Recycled Concrete. Elsevier; 2023, pp. 11–46. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-85210-4.00010-2

[5]Abera YA. Sustainable building materials: A comprehensive study on eco-friendly alternatives for construction. Composites and Advanced Materials. 2024; 33. doi: 10.1177/26349833241255957

[6]Shamass R, Rispoli O, Limbachiya V, et al. Mechanical and GWP assessment of concrete using Blast Furnace Slag, Silica Fume and recycled aggregate. Case Studies in Construction Materials. 2023; 18: e02164. doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02164

[7]Demura M. Challenges in Materials Integration. ISIJ International. 2024; 64(3): 503–512. doi: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2023-399

[8]Debrah C. Lifecycle Economic Feasibility Assessment Model for Green Finance in Green Building in Ghana [PhD Thesis]. Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2024. Available online: https://theses.lib.polyu.edu.hk/handle/200/13099

[9]Makul N. Modern sustainable cement and concrete composites: Review of current status, challenges and guidelines. Sustainable Materials and Technologies. 2020; 25: e00155. doi: 10.1016/j.susmat.2020.e00155

[10]Shi C, Jiménez AF, Palomo A. New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement. Cement and Concrete Research. 2011; 41(7): 750–763. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.016

[11]Tishmack JK, Burns PE. The chemistry and mineralogy of coal and coal combustion products. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 2004; 236(1): 223–246. doi: 10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.236.01.14

[12]Ahmad J, Kontoleon KJ, Majdi A, et al. A Comprehensive Review on the Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) in Concrete Production. Sustainability. 2022; 14(14): 8783. doi: 10.3390/su14148783

[13]Karlina AI, Karlina YI, Gladkikh VA. Analysis of Experience in the Use of Micro- and Nanoadditives from Silicon Production Waste in Concrete Technologies. Minerals. 2023; 13(12): 1525. doi: 10.3390/min13121525

[14]Tchadjie LN, Ekolu SO. Enhancing the reactivity of aluminosilicate materials toward geopolymer synthesis. Journal of Materials Science. 2018; 53(7): 4709–4733. doi: 10.1007/s10853-017-1907-7

[15]McCarthy MJ, Dyer TD. Pozzolanas and Pozzolanic Materials. In: Lea’ s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete. Elsevier; 2019, pp. 363–467. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100773-0.00009-5

[16]Purchase CK, Al Zulayq DM, O’Brien BT, et al. Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Waste: A Literature Review on Lessons, Challenges, and Benefits. Materials. 2021; 15(1): 76. doi: 10.3390/ma15010076

[17]Schneider M, Romer M, Tschudin M, et al. Sustainable cement production—present and future. Cement and Concrete Research. 2011; 41(7): 642–650. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019

[18]Suhendro B. Toward Green Concrete for Better Sustainable Environment. Procedia Engineering. 2014; 95: 305–320. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.190

[19]Mechtcherine V. Towards a durability framework for structural elements and structures made of or strengthened with high-performance fibre-reinforced composites. Construction and Building Materials. 2012; 31: 94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.072

[20]Malluru S, Islam SMI, Saidi A, et al. A State-of-the-Practice Review on the Challenges of Asphalt Binder and a Roadmap Towards Sustainable Alternatives—A Call to Action. Materials. 2025; 18(10): 2312. doi: 10.3390/ma18102312

[21]van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P. Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Minerals Engineering. 2012; 29: 89–104. doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009

[22]Menoufi KA. Life Cycle Analysis and Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodologies: a State of the Art [Master’s Thesis]. University of Lleida; 2011.

[23]He Z, Zhu X, Wang J, et al. Comparison of CO2 emissions from OPC and recycled cement production. Construction and Building Materials. 2019; 211: 965–973. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.289

[24]Hashmi DrAF, Khan MS, Bilal M, et al. Green Concrete: An Eco-Friendly Alternative to the OPC Concrete. Construction. 2022; 2(2): 93–103. doi: 10.15282/construction.v2i2.8710

[25]Kumar S, Gangotra A, Barnard M. Towards a Net Zero Cement: Strategic Policies and Systems Thinking for a Low-Carbon Future. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports. 2025; 12(1): 5. doi: 10.1007/s40518-025-00253-0

[26]Claes K, Vandenbussche L, Versele A, et al. Sustainable Planning and Construction in the South. KLIMOS: Leuven, Belgium.

[27]Singh N, Sharma RL, Yadav K. Sustainable Solutions: Exploring Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Construction. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering. 2025; 49(3): 2191–2224. doi: 10.1007/s40996-024-01585-5

[28]Tran CNN, Tam VWY, Le KN. Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Commercial Buildings. Routledge; 2021. doi: 10.1201/9781003128199

[29]Closs DJ, Bolumole YA. Transportation’ s Role in Economic Development and Regional Supply Chain Hubs. Transportation Journal. 2015; 54(1): 33–54. doi: 10.5325/transportationj.54.1.0033

[30]Olagunju B, Olanrewaju O. Life Cycle Assessment of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) Using both Problem Oriented (Midpoint) Approach and Damage Oriented Approach (Endpoint). In: Petrillo A, de Felice F (editors). Product Life Cycle—Opportunities for Digital and Sustainable Transformation. IntechOpen; 2021. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.98398