Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM66944
Volume:
10 |
8 |
Aug 2026
Pages:
1-21
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Civil Engineering
Jagannath University, Jaipur, India
Department of Civil Engineering
Jagannath University, Jaipur, India
Concrete innovation is often evaluated as a collection of isolated technologies: a low-clinker binder, a self-healing agent, a conductive filler, or a robotic deposition process. This paper develops an integrated design framework in which these functions are selected together against strength, durability, carbon, cost, constructability, and monitoring requirements. The proposed platform combines limestone-calcined clay cement (LC3), limited biochar and recycled-mineral fractions, moisture-activated mineral or microbial healing, and a percolating carbon-based sensing network. A structured evidence review is coupled with a transparent computational scenario study. Six candidate mixtures are compared using mass-balance embodied-carbon calculations, crack-closure kinetics, resistive sensing relationships, service-life logic, and multi-objective ranking. The scenario analysis indicates that a fully integrated candidate can lower cradle-to-gate global-warming potential by approximately 38–47% relative to the reference mixture while preserving a 28-day compressive-strength class suitable for common structural applications. Healing functionality is most valuable when it delays transport-controlled corrosion rather than when surface closure alone is treated as success. Sensing functionality is shown to require moisture and temperature compensation, four-probe measurement, and calibration after cracking and healing. The paper contributes: (i) a systems architecture for multifunctional concrete; (ii) equations and decision variables suitable for optimization; (iii) a staged verification protocol spanning fresh properties, mechanical response, transport, healing, sensing, and life-cycle assessment; and (iv) an implementation roadmap for Indian infrastructure. All numerical results in the scenario section are illustrative model outputs, not claimed laboratory measurements. The framework is intended to guide subsequent experimental validation and field demonstration.
KEYWORDS
At concept stage, the engineer identifies the asset function, exposure, design life, inspection access, likely crack mechanisms, consequence of leakage or corrosion, and current maintenance burden. The review asks whether a lower-clinker conventional concrete can already satisfy the need. Healing is considered only when a defined crack-related service problem remains, and sensing is considered only when information can trigger a funded decision. This avoids adding complexity without asset value. The concept record states mandatory thresholds and preferred objectives. Strength, stability, fire resistance, and exposure-specific durability remain mandatory. Carbon, cost, repair disruption, healing, and monitoring value are optimized within those limits. The project selects a functional unit and comparator before environmental calculations begin so that a later attractive result cannot be produced by changing the boundary.
[1] International Energy Agency and Cement Sustainability Initiative, Technology Roadmap: Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry. Paris, France: IEA, 2018. [2] International Energy Agency, “Cement,” Energy System—Industry, Paris, France, 2025. [3] K. L. Scrivener, V. M. John, and E. M. Gartner, “Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 114, pp. 2–26, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015. [4] G. Habert et al., “Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries,” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 1, pp. 559–573, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3. [5] K. Scrivener, F. Martirena, S. Bishnoi, and S. Maity, “Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3),” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 114, pp. 49–56, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.017. [6] Y. Dhandapani, M. Santhanam, G. Kaladharan, and S. Ramanathan, “Towards ternary binders involving limestone additions—A review,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 143, 2021. [7] LC3 Project, “Limestone Calcined Clay Cement—What is LC3?” EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2025. [8] United Nations Industrial Development Organization, LC3: A Guide to Best Practices for Scalable, Affordable, and Sustainable Cement. Vienna, Austria: UNIDO, 2024. [9] S. Monkman and Y. Shao, “Integration of carbon sequestration into curing process of precast concrete,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 302–310, 2010, doi: 10.1139/L09-140. [10] Z. Li, T. He, X. Chen, H. Liu, and others, “The performance of carbonation-cured concrete,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 22, 2019, doi: 10.3390/ma12223729.
Publication Date
8/25/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
7
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...