article · European Journal of Environmental and Civil engineering
Agricultural waste such as olive pomace bottom ash can serve as a substitute for cement, lowering resource consumption and offering an outlet for biomass residues. Investigating self-compacting mortars containing zero to twenty percent ash alongside limestone filler and varying water-to-binder ratios revealed distinct performance trade-offs. Ash content emerged as the primary factor dictating compressive strength, where higher replacement levels generally diminished strength due to cement dilution and weak early pozzolanic activity. Physical water absorption responded to all three constituents, though models for this property demonstrated lower predictive stability. In life cycle assessment models, substituting ash for cement accounted for almost all variation across environmental metrics. Through multi-objective optimisation, a formulation using twenty percent ash, twenty percent limestone filler, and a water-to-binder ratio of 0.453 achieved a predicted compressive strength of 40.0 megapascals while curbing the climate change impact to 294.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per cubic metre.
Cement manufacturing contributes heavily to global carbon emissions. Using locally available agricultural residues like olive pomace ash to replace cement in self-compacting mortars helps valorise farming waste while lowering the environmental footprint of construction materials. Providing precise mixture optimisation allows the construction sector to balance concrete strength requirements directly against greenhouse gas reduction targets.
This work enables the formulation of low-carbon self-compacting mortars for building material manufacturers, concrete producers, and olive processing enterprises seeking waste valorisation. With seventeen laboratory mixtures tested and optimised through statistical modelling and cradle-to-gate environmental assessments, the technology represents applied and tested research that requires further pilot-scale production and long-term durability trials before direct market deployment.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Olive pomace bottom ash (OPBA) is a locally available biomass residue that could reduce cement consumption while providing a practical route for agricultural-waste valorisation. This study combined Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to examine the effects of OPBA replacement (0–20%), limestone filler content (10–20%), and water-to-binder ratio (0.45–0.50) on the mechanical, physical and life cycle assessment properties of self-compacting mortars. Seventeen mixtures were evaluated using a central composite design, and quadratic models were developed for compressive strength, water absorption, and four LCA indicators. OPBA was the main factor controlling compressive strength, accounting for 71.20% of the modelled response, followed by the water-to-binder ratio at 17.44%. Increasing OPBA generally reduced strength because of cement dilution and its limited pozzolanic contribution at 28 days. Water absorption was jointly influenced by OPBA, limestone filler, and the water-to-binder ratio, with contributions of 34.74%, 23.50%, and 21.26%, respectively. The compressive-strength model showed good fitting performance and moderate cross-validated predictability (R2 = 0.950, R2pred = 0.606), whereas the water-absorption model showed weaker predictive stability (R2 = 0.902, R2pred = 0.245). Lack-of-fit was not significant for either response. Under the adopted cut-off allocation approach, OPBA was also the dominant factor governing the environmental indicators, accounting for approximately 95.7–99.9% of their modelled variation. Multi-objective optimisation identified a formulation containing 20% limestone filler, 20% OPBA, and a water-to-binder ratio of 0.453, with predicted compressive strength of 40.0 MPa, water absorption of 12.9%, and climate-change impact of 294.7 kg CO2-eq/m3.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2026.2726511
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
