Green Concrete with Glass Powder—A Literature Review

Abstract

This paper represents a literature review of the effects of partially replacing cement with glass powder in concrete production, aiming to provide an enhanced elucidation of 78 published scientific articles between 2015 and 2023. Vigorous inclusion criteria were employed to accomplish this objective, such as focusing only on glass powder usage instead of cement, considering both conventional and unconventional concretes, and summarizing the physical, mechanical, durability, and morphological characteristics. It has been attempted not only to discuss the factors that contribute to similarities and differences but also to interpret associations and concerns as well as propose future research directions based on the identified gaps. The literature review reveals that using glass powder looks captivating and has higher mechanical and durability properties with environmentally friendly advantages simultaneously due to its filler and pozzolanic characteristics, especially in smaller sizes. The findings of this study are expected to promote sustainable and environmentally conscious practices beyond the current scope of research.

1. Introduction

Globally, billions of tons of waste glass are generated annually, with approximately half of this waste being disposed of in landfills [1,2]. The rate of production of waste glass is increasing intensely while the landfills are on the brink of a critical situation and filling up rapidly [3,4,5]. Glass is considered a non-biodegradable material with a decomposition process lasting over a million years [6,7]. Furthermore, toxic components of glass could be hazardous to the ecosystem, which necessitates instant and sustained attention [8,9]. Glass toxicity is mostly linked with particular sorts or materials, such as lead oxide in crystal glasses, cadmium-based pigments in colored glass, and antimony trioxide and arsenic in antique glasses [8,9]. Therefore, reusing and recycling as the main goals of sustainability that could maintain a huge amount of resources, curtail emitting greenhouse gasses, and lessen energy and cost consumption are of vital importance to have a sustainable glass industry [10,11,12].

Glass is considered an unlimited recyclable material that could theoretically maintain its quality while sorting, cleaning, and melting processes are sophisticated, which made the worldwide recycling rate so low [6,7]. Around one-fifth of all manufactured glass worldwide was recycled in 2018 [10]. Returning glass waste to the recycling life cycle is a persuasive attempt to limit the defects of glass manufacturing, although its process is not entirely sustainable or cost-effective [11]. Using glass powder in manufacturing concrete presents challenges, including maintaining a uniform particle size distribution, ensuring consistent quality and purity from recycled sources, and developing optimal mix designs through rigorous testing. From the mentioned challenges, Long-term durability assessment, especially in harsh conditions, is crucial. Generally, concrete is attacked by several simultaneous effects, which have never been tested in a real-world environment [6,7,8,9].

Another challenge could be the cost-effectiveness and availability of high-quality glass powder, which can limit its use. Health and safety executives during preparation, handling, and mixing may require precautions, and compatibility testing is essential when glass powder might need to be mixed with other materials. Finally, an in-depth life cycle assessment is needed to maximize glass powder’s benefits while addressing challenges [10,11]. Further details regarding this issue are provided in Section 2, named Concrete Production. One potential alternative way could be incorporating glass waste into concrete production, which not only could reduce the demand for cement but also bypass the energy-intensive remelting process that generates substantial amounts of CO₂ emissions [12]. Comparatively to both previous pieces of the literature published on the characteristics of concrete manufactured with glass powder alone [2,6], with a lack of documented durability characteristics, the current study focuses exclusively on reviewing comprehensively and exploring providing a comprehensive and clear understanding of newly published articles after 2015 determine the pros and cons, gasps as well as establish possible benefits for future research and focusing mostly on all the unconsidered durability and mechanical properties and explaining the physical and chemical interactions that happen after using glass powder specially for long periods of time in lines.

The main objective of using GP as a replacement for cement is to critically evaluate this environmentally friendly material and assess its feasibility for future applications, including its synergy with other waste materials or additives, as well as its compatibility with non-potable water sources in concrete production. In this manner, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the utilization of glass powder in concrete manufacturing, it is imperative to conduct an in-depth review of the latest research findings on GP with filler and pozzolanic properties when it is replaced with cement and its rule to reduce the environmental footprint of concrete production, waste reduction, energy saving. There are several factors associated with glass powder that affect cement hydration, including its high surface area and fine particle size, especially for sizes of 0–25 μm. With sizes smaller than cement, GP fills the gaps and pores by blocking the interior pores network, resulting in a denser structure. The pozzolanic properties of glass powder, such as its amorphous structure, high silica content, and chemical composition (including alkali content), refer to its ability to react with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂) to form calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel and other cementitious compounds.

This literature review comprises published articles retrieved from Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and Scopus, specifically addressing the utilization of glass powder in the production of environmentally friendly concrete. The review encompasses the summarization of properties related to freshness, mechanical strength, durability, and morphology. To effectively manage the extensive body of available literature, the scope of this review is confined to studies published from 2015 onwards. Furthermore, to maintain a clear focus on the core objective of this review, publications sourced from ISI journals pertaining to the use of glass waste as a substitute for both fine and coarse aggregates or in the manufacturing of other construction materials have been deliberately excluded. The present study considered a total of 78 scientific articles to investigate the physical, mechanical, durability, and morphological properties. This could be helpful in identifying gaps that have not yet been addressed in each section.

2. Glass Production

In recent years, the glass industry has come to prominence as a driving factor for both economic and sustainability balance since it is tremendously valuable, and it has attempted to address both issues. In the United States, only the glass industry was valued at around 31 billion dollars, while worldwide revenue of this section was about 130 billion dollars in 2019 [13,14]. By 2025, due to the expansion of the United States glass demand, it is anticipated that flat glass sector revenue will reach 44 billion dollars [13,14]. It has been anticipated that by 2027, the glass industry will surpass 180 billion American dollars [15,16].

The glass industry is categorized as a market with a relatively high energy consumption griffin [17]. Considering that energy costs are a significant expense for the glass industry, the majority of companies have made substantial efforts to optimize their energy efficiency. The raw materials must be melted at approximately 1500–1600 degrees Celsius, and fossil fuels account for 85 percent of the fuel used in furnaces. [18,19]. The electricity supply provides 15% of the energy for the operation of parts of furnaces and other facilities. Typically, the melting stage requires around 3 MJ/kg of energy [18]. There is only a 30 percent share of energy used in the glass-forming process of the entire process of manufacturing glass [19].

Besides that, the glass manufacturing process emits greenhouse and toxic gases, such as CO₂, NO_x, SO_x, KOH, NaOH, HF, and HCl, into the atmosphere [20]. Direct and indirect emissions could originate from burning fossil fuels, the operation of facilities, and transferring materials and products [20]. It is reported that the production of one kilogram of glass contributes to approximately 0.6 kg of carbon dioxide emissions, of which 0.45 kg of this amount are caused by fossil fuel combustion [21]. It is estimated that only the manufacturing of flat and container glass could emit approximately 60 million tons of carbon dioxide in one year [21]. Over 20 million tons of carbon dioxide are emitted annually by glass production in the European Union [21].

One of the environmental benefits of re-melting cullet is that it minimizes CO₂ emissions throughout the production process compared to making glass from new raw materials. Yet, the remelting process consumes a great deal of energy and releases a great deal of greenhouse gases [21]. Furthermore, it could reduce the cost and consumption of raw materials. It seems that skipping the remelting stage by reusing rather than recycling could be even more beneficial for both the economy and the environment [11,21]. Approximately 50 billion tons of aggregate are used each year around the world to manufacture glass, electronics, and concrete [11,21]. The annual demand is expected to reach 82 billion tons by 2060 [11,21].

As a result of glass’s pozzolanic and filler properties, it could be used as an alternative to cement in the recycling process in order to eliminate the need to remelt and package the material. Approximately 40 to 50 billion tons of sand and gravel are extracted annually throughout the world, with a significant portion being used to produce concrete, according to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Furthermore, similar to the glass industry, the cement industry is also one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. In 2018, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that cement factories contributed to about 3 billion tons of CO₂ (7 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions). It is also indicated that cement replacement with glass powder could reduce GHG emissions by 12% and cement industry energy consumption by 15% [22].

To address this massive problem, reducing, reusing, and recycling are the three vital steps towards reaching sustainable goals. As is obvious, the first important step starts with managing the demand and declining waste production by improving the quality of materials. Reusing is the next phase, and the EU has determined that factories must prioritize glass reuse over recycling. Although recycling is superior to manufacturing from scratch by utilizing virgin raw materials, reusing is more sustainable since it eliminates the additional remelting step [23,24]. In this concern, as a result of producing thicker, higher-quality bottles, the rate of reuse could be increased, thereby reducing the need to recycle or manufacture new bottles [12]. As an example, glass milk bottles were collected from the houses and reused up to 18 times before recycling became necessary. It is stated that a glass bottle can be reused up to fifty times without losing significant quality, although flat and construction window glasses have a negligible reuse rate [12]. The recycled content of flat glass produced in the UK is around 20–30% [12].

When reusing is not possible, recycling becomes the next option, and glass is capable of being recycled to a 100 percent extent. It is reported that recycling one ton of waste glass could prevent around 350 kWh and 246 kg of energy and carbon dioxide, respectively. Using waste glass annually can prevent the use of 1.2 tons of new virgin materials, 25% of energy, and 60% of carbon dioxide emissions [11,12,21]. The global rate of recycling in 2018 was just 21% [11,21]. America’s recycling rate is approximately 30%, Australia’s 40%, South Africa’s 20%, Portugal and Hong Kong’s 45%, and the United Kingdom’s 50% [11,12,21]. However, in some European Union countries like Germany and Belgium, the recycling rate is about 90% [11,12,21], which is considerably high [21]. Globally, in one year, around 200 million tons of produced glasses end up in landfills [2]. It seems that partially substituting cement with glass could be beneficial for both the economy and the environment, but there is no research on the life cycle assessment of using glass powder in concrete to show the real advantages of GP for the economy and environment. Figure 1 illustrates the import and export quantities of glass in several key countries. Based on this visual representation, China, the UK, and North Africa show the highest levels of imports, whereas the UK, Switzerland, and the USA exhibit the highest levels of exports, respectively [11,12,21].

3. Physical and Chemical Properties

3.1. Physical Properties

Almost all the previous studies have declared that the particle size of glass waste could lead to different properties in concrete by affecting the cement hydration matrix [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26]. Several investigations stated that alkali–silica reaction (ASR) expansions could occur in large particles and result in forming of voluminous gels, which generate intense interior tension and start cracking the concrete [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26]. The literature review reveals that using 10–100% of waste glass (soda-lime, electric, and lead glasses) with particle sizes more than 850 μm as an alternative to fine and coarse aggregates could decrease compressive strength between 7–55% [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26]. However, contrary results were observed in using glass powder, which looks captivating to have green concrete due to its different filler and pozzolanic characteristics [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26]. Generally, glass powder (GP) is characterized by a slippery texture that has steep slopes, sharp corners, and large surface areas with pozzolanic properties [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,25,26].

3.2. Chemical Properties

Figure 2 indicates the leaching rate of calcium and silicate in different NaOH solutions [27]. A crucial aspect of evaluating the properties of concrete is analyzing the dissolution states of calcium and silicate ions from glass powder in a NaOH solution. Differences in the leaching behavior of calcium (Ca²⁺) and silicate (SiO₄⁴⁻) ions in sodium hydroxide (NaOH) could be driven by their chemical properties [27]. Firstly, the difference in their solubility. For instance, calcium is highly soluble in aqueous solutions compared to silicate [27], and secondly, due to the formation of precipitates. For instance, silicate ions can react with NaOH to form various silicate compounds, some of which are poorly soluble in water. These precipitates can limit the leaching of silicate ions into the solution [27]. Last but not least, the pH could have an impact. Sodium hydroxide is a strong base, and its addition to a solution can significantly raise the pH. The high pH environment can influence the solubility of various compounds. In the case of silicate ions, the elevated pH can promote the formation of silicate precipitates, further reducing their leaching into the solution [27]. The research findings reveal that the concentration of calcium ions decreases as the concentration of NaOH solution increases, primarily due to the reaction of calcium with hydroxide ions that leads to the formation of calcium hydroxide [27]. In contrast, the presence of amorphous silicon dioxide in GP promotes the formation of calcium silicate hydration products through interaction with calcium hydroxide. Consequently, the concentration of silicate in GP increases with an increase in the concentration of sodium hydroxide [27].

3.3. Workability

The literature review shows conflicting results regarding the workability of GP as a replacement for cement. The majority of the 15 review articles reported that GP tends to increase the slump, although some contrary results have also been stated [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. It is mentioned that the slippery texture and low water absorption of GP could be the reason behind increasing workability compared to cement particles that absorb more water [28,29,31,32,33,34,35,37,42]. Kamali and Ghahremaninezhad (2015) stated that industrial and consumer by-products of glass powder wastes, as a replacement for 5–20% cement in concrete manufacturing, could increase the slump generally with the exception of 15% GP on both types [28]. No reason was given for this behavior. However, it is plausible that this anomaly may have arisen from an experimental error, as similar outcomes were observed in cases of both lower and higher glass powder (GP) usage [28]. Several similar studies reported increasing workability following the use of glass powder [29,31,32,33,34,35,37,42].

Since the process of releasing ions in the water is time-consuming, soaking before adding it to the mix design might help to activate the pozzolanic properties and compensate for the lower water absorption problem of GPs [34]. In order to explore the impact of immersing glass powder in water, they have conducted an experimental procedure. Based on the study of Elaqra et al. (2019), an initial mixture of GP was blended with a specific quantity of water defined by a w/c ratio of 0.72 for a duration of 8 h [34]. This step has been reported to be crucial as it could facilitate the hydrolysis of the glass powder, leading to the generation of SiO₂, CaO, and Na₂O, all of which play a vital role in contributing to the formation of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH). Subsequently, the water was gradually introduced to the dry concrete components. Their report included the measurement of free ions through flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Specifically, for 10% GP after soaking, the reported results indicated the release of 23.0 mmol/L of Ca ions and 96.3 mmol/L of Na ions into the water [34].

However, some researchers have declared that GP, due to its sharp angles, high superficial charges, large specific surface area, non-smooth surface, and filler effect, could decrease workability by blocking the interior pores and structures [30,33,36,38,39,41,43]. The mentioned characteristics appear correct, but time might have a more significant effect than these properties. In other words, while glass powder (GP) exhibits a filler effect, its impact on the slump test might be limited at early stages, as many papers have suggested, due to the delayed activation of GP’s pozzolanic properties. However, using other additives, glass waste type, water-to-cement ratio, type of cement, and size of glass power are some determining parameters that change the final result [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The effects of GP on workability are summarized in Figure 3.

3.4. Setting Time

Many studies have declared that alternating cement with GP could increase both initial and final setting time, which is antithetical to insignificant numbers of reports [30,40,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Figure 4 provides the initial and final setting times results of previous experimental work on using glass powder in concrete, respectively [30,40,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Generally, several samples with different amounts of GP had higher initial and final setting times than control samples. According to the data, as the percentage of GP increases from 5% to 20%, both initial and final setting time increases intensely, and then the rate of increase declines in 25% and 30% GP replacement. Han et al. 2016 indicated that 10% borosilicate GP as an alternative to cement could decrease the initial and final setting time slightly [44]. Kamali and Ghahremaninezhad (2016) found that both fiber and recycled glass waste can be used to reduce initial and final setting times when replacing 20% of cement, with the exception of a slight 11% increase in initial setting time when using fiber [45]. Aliabdo et al. reported a maximum 26% increase in initial setting time with 25% GP substitution for cement but found that 5–10% GP may accelerate hydration, 15% has no effect, and beyond 25% GP can increase final setting time without mentioning reasons behind the occurrence of these adverse behaviors [30].

Lu et al. 2017 found that using GP could increase both the initial and final setting time regardless of the size, but smaller GP particles resulting from longer grinding could further increase the setting time [46]. The highest increment occurred at 20% GP replacement with 30 min grinding around 17 and 23% delay in initial and final setting time [46]. The effect of cement type was also investigated, and it was found that both cement types I and II, in combination with 10–30% GP, could delay both initial and final setting time [47]. The higher Al₂O₃ percentage in cement type II was the reason for more delay in cement hydration [47]. Only one paper has reported that smaller glass powder (GP) particles could lead to a more significant increase in the setting time [46]. Apart from this mentioned article, the remaining studies did not provide any direct correlation between particle size and setting time. Patel et al. 2019 and Huseien et al. 2020 both confirmed that GP could increase both initial and final setting time [48,49]. Finally, a recent paper indicated that increasing glass powder content in the binder prolonged the setting time by approximately 18% and 30% for the initial and final setting time, respectively [50].

On the contrary, the results of Sharifi et al. 2016 were completely in a different direction and reported that a combination of 5–30% GP with 1.1–1.4% superplasticizer could increase both initial and final setting time in all percentages, although decreasing the SP percentage resulted in lowering the initial setting time [51]. Ibrahim and Meawad 2022 associated the acceleration effect with the glassy surface and lower water absorption of GP, which decreases water demand and improves the structure of hydration products by adhering to the matrix due to its filler effect [40]. The setting time results of previous studies are categorized in Figure 5, showing that around 60% of samples manufactured with GP showed an increment in both initial and final setting time compared to control samples. 25 and 19% of specimens demonstrated no significant differences in initial and final setting time, respectively. Less than one-fifth of the studies stated that glass powder could decline the setting time.

3.5. ASR Expansion

Figure 6 represents the schematic process of the alkali-silica reaction in 3 stages. Dissolving hydroxyl ions and alkali cations of cement and glass powder in the interior pores and reacting with the aggregates’ silica phases (stage 1 in Figure 6) could lead to an alkali-silica reaction (ASR) (stage 2 in Figure 6) and form a voluminous and expansive alkali-silica gel, which cracks the internal structure of cement hydration products and aggregates (stage 3 in Figure 6) [52]. ASR expansion is directly influenced by the size of the glass powder, with larger particles resulting in larger expansion, as shown in Figure 7. The slope of the trend line indicates that increasing the GP percentage may reduce the ASR expansion, but this relationship is not significant and may vary subject to different conditions due to a very low R square value. ASR expansion should not exceed 0.1% [53]. According to Bignozzi et al. 2015, five categories of glass powder with different diameters were tested, with soda-lime glass (SL) having the highest SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ content, resulting in 72.5% ASR expansion and crystal glass (CR) having the lowest amount with around 58.6% ASR expansion [54]. After 14 days, samples made with funnel glass (FNL), end-use fluorescent lamp (LMPS), SL, and control samples had an acceptable expansion, with approximate amounts of 0.08%, 0.07%, 0.06%, and 0.05%, respectively [54]. Kim et al. in 2015 showed that increasing glass powder and combining it with 10% FA could decrease the ASR expansion, with 66%, 70%, and 87.5% reductions in samples manufactured with 10% GP, 20% GP, and 10% GP + 10% FA, respectively [55].

Ke et al. 2018 found that increasing the size of glass powder leads to an increase in ASR expansion, consistent with previous studies [56]. They noted that small sizes may reduce ASR expansion compared to control samples, but larger sizes and higher percentages can lead to opposite results [56]. According to the authors, the pozzolanic reaction transforms portlandite crystals into calcium silicate hydrate gel, enhancing the internal structure by filling voids and pores. However, when larger particles are present, they have the capacity to absorb more water, resulting in increased expansion. This expansion can ultimately lead to the degradation of hydration products and the formation of cracks [56].

Elaqra and Rustom (2019) reported that increasing the percentages of GP up to 30% with sizes smaller than 75 μm could decrease the ASR expansion significantly [34,47]. However, all the samples except the sample manufactured with 30% GP and cement type I with higher CaO rather than cement type II percentage did not comply with the standard [47]. Lu et al. showed that using 70% glass cullet and 20% GP as aggregate and cement replacement reduced ASR expansion by about 33% at 14 days without cracks after 28 days [46]. Similarly, Hendi et al. (2019) found that only 30% GP with sizes around 1 μm resulted in acceptable ASR expansion [35]

Yang et al. 2020 used up to 30% GP with sizes smaller than 100 μm in combination with 100% glass waste aggregate, 0 and 1% SP in 2 different water-to-cement ratios, including 0.47 and 0.42 [58]. It seems that increasing the water-to-cement ratio and adding a superplasticizer could increase the ASR expansion significantly. Furthermore, in this case, like in previous studies, increasing the GP resulted in lowering the ASR expansion in all samples [58]. They declared that besides forming C-S-H gels that improve the interior structure, GP could control the dissolution of silica by providing higher alumina concentration [58]. Moreover, by using calcium hydroxide in generation gels, the amount of calcium gets reduced, and pozzolanic reactions occur before ASR expansion [58]. In general, calcium hydroxide is likely to react with available amorphous silica in glass powder to form calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel, resulting in reducing the amount of free calcium hydroxide in the concrete and converting the (Ca(OH)₂) crystals into stronger C-S-H gel as well as mitigating the alkali-silica reaction (ASR) concerns. This reaction refines the concrete’s microstructure, leading to a denser and less porous interior structure and ultimately enhancing both mechanical and durability properties, especially during older ages. Fanijo et al. (2021) found that adding more GP or combining it with slag or silica fume could reduce ASR expansion [59]. Slag performed better than silica fume, possibly due to its finer particles that react more easily. In their study, 30% GP resulted in the best ASR test performance [59]. Figure 8 shows that over 80% of samples improved ASR property with GP, but less than 50% met the related standard for acceptable expansion [28,35,36,47,54,55,56,57,58,59].

4. Mechanical Properties

Compressive Strength

Compressive strength results of manufactured concrete with glass powder comprises the information about the age (28 days–6.7 years), GP size (8.4–850 μm), the utilized additive or cement type (superplasticizer SP (0.1–2.5% or 3.5–13 kg/m³), granite powder GrP (5–20%), Cullet as replacement of aggregates (70%), fiber (157 kg/m³), steel slag powder SSP (10–30%), and waste electronic powder WEP (5–20%)) and effect of temperature (25–800 °C). Kamali and Ghahremaninezhad (2015) noted that the GP1 group, primarily composed of industrial fiberglass waste, exhibited higher pozzolanic reactivity. This characteristic was identified as the primary factor responsible for the earlier-age densification of this type of concrete compared to the GP2 group, which primarily incorporated recycled glass consumer by-products. In contrast, GP2 displayed a marginal reduction in compressive strength, measuring 5%, 15%, and 20% lower after 28 days. However, the delayed formation of portlandite gels improved the internal structure, resulting in a noteworthy increase of approximately 8% in compressive strength after 90 days, with a 20% GP2 content [28].

Figure 9 summarizes the effect of curing age on the compressive strength of concrete samples. The results showed that by increasing the curing age, the compressive strength of glass powder samples could improve. At 28 days, around 40% of samples had an increment, while half of the samples showed a decline. At 90 days, 77% stated that GP could improve the compressive strength. At 365 days, a hundred percent of samples showed an improvement in compressive strength. Sadiqul Islam et al. (2017) reported that samples with 10 and 15% GP had no significant differences compared to control samples at 28 days [60]. At 90 days, similar behavior occurred except for samples with 15% GP. At 365 days, all samples up to 25% GP without additives and 10 and 15% GP in combination with 1% SP had higher compressive strength. The authors similarly pointed out that the impact of time on compressive strength aligns with this rationale. They indicated that the pozzolanic properties of glass tend to become more activated as concrete ages [60]. Du and Tan (2017) observed that incorporating up to 45% GP (ground-granulated blast-furnace slag) led to an improvement in compressive strength after 28 days. However, when the GP content was increased to 60%, a decline in compressive strength was noted. Nevertheless, at all subsequent time points, including up to 365 days, higher compressive strength was consistently observed [61]. The dissolution of amorphous silica and its subsequent reaction with calcium progresses relatively slowly. The improved performance at later stages can be attributed to the delayed formation of calcium-silicate-hydrate, a process that requires more time to develop fully [61]. Elaqra et al. (2019) reported that conventional usage of GP could reduce compressive strength at 28 days, but using 10 and 20% GP might achieve higher compressive strength at 90 days. They also found that soaking GP particles in water before use in concrete could improve compressive strength [34]. Gupta et al. (2021) observed that 5–35% GP did not affect compressive strength at 28 days but increased it at 90 days [62]. Esmaeili and Al-Mwanes (2021), Li et al. (2021), and Zhan et al. (2022) also reported an improvement in compressive strength at older ages compared to 28 days [39,63,64]. Ali et al. (2017) found that 25% GP with a large particle size (850 μm) can improve the 35-day compressive strength at temperatures up to 800 °C [65]. Jain et al. (2020) suggested that using a combination of up to 20% GP and 40% granite powder might increase the compressive strength, but higher percentages may lead to a decline [66]. Balasubramanian et al. (2021) observed that incorporating waste electronic plastic (WEP) with GP can lead to a 30% reduction in compressive strength due to incomplete hydration and a porous structure [37].

Figure 10 summarizes the effect of GP percentage on concrete compressive strength. Samples with 5%, 10%, and 15% GP had similar behavior, with about 40% reporting a decline. At 20% replacement, more studies reported declines than improvements. For samples with 30% or more GP, around 60% reported improvements. At 30% replacement, 17% had no significant difference with control samples. Overall, 50% had higher compressive strength with GP replacement, 44% had lower strength, and 6% had no change. Factors like GP size, curing age, additives, and cement types significantly affect concrete properties.

5. Durability Properties

5.1. Water Absorption

Mirzahosseini and Riding (2015) studied the effect of GP size on water absorption in two curing ages of 1 and 90 days [26]. They found that at early ages, GP increased water absorption, but at later ages, water absorption could decrease significantly, especially for sizes of 0–25 μm, due to finer particles filling gaps and pores, blocking the interior pores network [26]. Alibado et al. (2016) reported that increasing GP particle size up to 70 μm and using up to 25% replacement might result in lower water absorption, with 20% replacement providing the best performance [30].

Harbi et al. 2017 combined GP with brick waste or metakaolin using SP 2.5% in all samples [67]. GP with metakaolin improved water absorption, while combining GP with brick waste increased water absorption intensely [67]. Lu et al. found that combining GP 20% and cullet 70% reduced water absorption from 6% in control samples to 3.6% [57]. Patel et al. (2019) reported similar findings by using GP particles of 63 and 75 μm, with superior outcomes achieved when employing finer particles [48]. Gupta et al. 2021 stated that up to 40% GP reduces water absorption due to denser portlandite gels that create a uniformly packed structure [62]. A linear decrease in water absorption was observed in GP utilization [37]. Nonetheless, the inclusion of waste electronic powder alongside GP resulted in higher water absorption when compared to using GP alone [37]. Utilizing up to 15% GP, whether with or without granite waste, led to a modest reduction in water absorption. However, higher percentages exhibited only negligible increases [66]. Elaqra et al. found no significant difference between using 10%, 20%, and 30% GP, but a new soaking method could reduce water absorption considerably [34]. Huseien et al. used 25-micrometer GP and found that GP does not substantially affect water absorption, but increasing GP could slightly reduce it, and SP or SF additives help to further reduce it [49]. Ibrahim (2021) combined GP with 10% silica fume and 10% fly ash to reduce water absorption, and both additives helped in comparison with single GP usage [38]. Ali-Boucetta (2021) and Ahmad et al. (2022) showed that combining GP could decrease water absorption [36,41]. The results of water absorption are summarized in Figure 11.

5.2. Chloride Penetration

Chloride ions could interact with Aluminate-Ferrite-mono (AFm) products in two ways to generate Friedel’s salts [68]. Initially, the exchange of hydroxide and free chloride ions in AFm structures could result in an increase in pH and alkalinity attacks, as shown in Equation (1) [68].

$$\mathrm{OH}-\mathrm{AFM} (\mathrm{hydroxy}-\mathrm{AFm})+{\mathrm{Cl}}^{-} \to \mathrm{Friedel}’\mathrm{s} \mathrm{salt} + \mathrm{O}{\mathrm{H}}^{-} + \mathrm{C}{\mathrm{l}}^{-} (\mathrm{still} \mathrm{there} \mathrm{will} \mathrm{remain} \mathrm{chloride})$$

(1)

Secondly, in order to balance the displacement charge between Calcium and Aluminum ions, AFm hydrate layers absorb the available free ions of chloride from the pores and voids [68]. Figure 12 represents this behavior schematically. Moreover, Chemical binding can also occur in a different manner with cement hydration products, resulting in the formation of Calcium Oxychloride compounds (CAOXY) with about three times the volume of Calcium hydroxide products. [69,70,71,72]. By the same token, these new voluminous by-products are likely to generate immense interior tensions and result in destructive deformations, which can exceedingly expand the cracks and voids as well as decline the machinal and durability properties of concrete [72]. Last but certainly not least, it has also been highlighted in prior research that the diffuse layer of calcium silicate hydrate gels has the capacity to absorb chloride ions, particularly in situations of elevated chloride concentration and a higher calcium-to-silicate ratio [68,73]. In this context, considering GP that could increase density, generate compact structure, and boost the strength of crystals and gels could be desirable to defeat the downsides of chloride attacks.

Kamali and Ghahremaninezhad (2015) found that GP usage reduced chloride penetration, except for the 5% GP2 samples due to recycled glass consumer by-products [28]. Omran et al. (2017) reported that GP usage decreased chloride penetration, except for 20% GP in 90 days in CSD slabs and 10% GP in 2.1 years in Tri-GAT walls, where slight increases were observed [31]. As the age of concrete samples increased, the chloride penetration decreased significantly [31]. For example, in the SAQ-GP sample, chloride ions decreased by around 95% after 6.7 years [31]. The utilization of GP also led to a reduction in chloride penetration in CSD slabs, sidewalks, and Tri-GAT walls [31]. The control samples had moderate to high chloride passed charge, while the GP specimens were in the very low range according to the related standard. [74] Du and Tan (2017) and Siade et al. (2018) observed that incorporating up to 45% GP, whether with or without SP (superplasticizer), led to a reduction in chloride ion penetration. However, when the GP content was increased to 60%, samples containing SP exhibited lower chloride ion content, while those without SP showed higher penetration [61,75]. As concrete ages, its pore structure tends to improve, and chloride penetration is reduced, even though higher penetration may be observed during the early stages of its life [33]. Jain et al. 2020 reported that using up to 15% GP and 30% Gr could have a positive effect on reducing penetration, while higher percentages could have the opposite result [66].

Ali-Boucetta (2021) discovered that incorporating 25% GP resulted in a significant reduction in chloride penetration. However, when 30 kg/m³ of silica fume was added to the mix with 25% GP, it further enhanced performance [36]. GP blocks the connection between pores and voids, reduces their volumes, and slows down the fluid transfer rate due to its filling characteristics and pozzolanic effect [36]. Balasubramanian et al. (2021) noted a similar pattern when incorporating 5–20% GP, where the addition of up to 10% waste electronic powder (WEP) to GP was effective in reducing chloride ions, but higher percentages had adverse effects [37]. Figure 13 summarizes these results.

5.3. Carbon and Sulfate Attacks

Carbonation occurs when CO₂ reacts with calcium hydroxide in cement products (stage 1 in Figure 14), resulting in forming calcium carbonate and releasing water (stage 2 in Figure 14), which lead to weakening concrete bonds and decreasing mechanical and durability properties. The carbonation attack in concrete is depicted in Figure 14. Studies on the carbonation of GP concrete are limited, with only two studies found. Sales et al. in 2017 studied the effect of two types of GP, colorless and amber GP, with sizes of around 9 and 10 μm, respectively, through the experimental investigation [76]. To evaluate the accelerated carbonation, they stored the samples for 60 days in 5% CO_2, and their outcomes indicated that GP could increase the Carbon ion percentage by increasing the GP percentage [76]. They informed us that larger particles of GP might be the reason behind this behavior [76]. In 2021, Ali-Boucetta et al. reported the same data and declared that the higher carbonation rate is not related to higher permeability, and it would seem to stem from the carbonation of sodium oxide, which is rich in glass powder [36].

Siad et al. investigated the impact of combining GP with furnace slag (SG), limestone powder (LP), and fly ash (FA) on sulfate attack resistance [75]. They found that increasing GP improved resistance to 5% H₂SO₄ after 12 weeks, with the best performance seen in 20% GP, 20% LP, and 45% GP alone [75]. All three additives exhibited a positive influence, with higher GP percentages yielding a more pronounced effect. Nevertheless, there was a notable compressive strength reduction within the range of 30–54%, which is quite substantial [74,75]. Gupta et al. (2021) observed that a sulfate attack during the early stages could lead to an increase in the compressive strength of concrete, with the most significant increase seen in control samples. However, an increase in GP content resulted in a reduced strength increase [62]. It was reported that during the early stages, the formation of gypsum and ettringite led to the creation of new by-products, which started filling the pores and densifying the concrete. However, over time, these expansive products also generated new cracks and contributed to interior deterioration [77,78]. However, after 90 days, control samples had the highest compressive strength reduction, while samples with 40% GP had the best performance, with reductions of less than 10%, complying with related standards [62]. Ahmad et al. (2022) showed that increasing GP in rubberized concrete could improve resistance to sulfate corrosion due to the denser pore structure limiting sulfate ion diffusion [41]. Figure 15 summarizes the results of carbonation and sulfate attack on GP concrete samples.

6. Discussions

Using glass waste powder has been shown not only to reduce the cost, energy consumption, and pollution of the environment but also to improve the concrete properties in order to have sustainable construction. This would significantly streamline the waste glass recycling process and advance a more integrated economy. A sustainable industry places a strong emphasis on reusing and recycling as primary strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and decrease energy and material consumption. Recycling 1000 kg of waste glass, for instance, preserves 1200 kg of raw materials, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 60%, and significantly lowers energy demands and associated costs [7,8,10]. Nevertheless, recycling glass in a glass factory necessitates energy-intensive remelting and advanced technologies, potentially leading to greenhouse gas emissions. Utilizing glass waste as a filler and pozzolanic material in cement offers a viable alternative, mitigating the need for remelting and the associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers around the world have taken different angles on this topic in accordance with their specializations, which might be in contrast to the actual concerns that need to be addressed. Only 2 and 3 papers have examined the performance of glass powder concrete after exposure to carbonation and sulfate attack, respectively. However, in actual environmental conditions, multiple forms of attack can occur simultaneously, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive assessment of concrete containing new materials to validate its real-world suitability. However, the indeterminacy in the interplay of glass powder and cement or water constitutes a key limitation, and most of the controlling factors are still unknown.

In addition, extensive variation in information makes it difficult to compare results. There have been several major indicators identified, including the type, color, and chemical characteristics of glass wastes, usage of multiple additives with different proportions, soaking or not soaking in water, the size, mix design, and curing age of the samples, which all imply disintegrated data. Glass powder has been employed as an alternative to cement due to the substantial resource and energy consumption, as well as the significant environmental pollution associated with cement and glass production. The conflicting data in the literature regarding the physical, mechanical, and durability properties can likely be attributed to variations in the size of glass particles. It is widely accepted that finer glass particles tend to have more effective filler and pozzolanic properties. Figure 16 illustrates a schematic representation of the interior concrete structure in control samples (left image) and samples incorporating glass powder as a replacement (right image). In general, it seems that exceptionally fine glass powder particles, characterized by a larger specific surface area and greater surface charges compared to cement particles, are capable of filling gaps, obstructing internal networks, and enhancing the likelihood of forming homogeneous cement hydration products by providing additional hydration sites. Alongside the filler effect of GP, the rich pozzolanic characteristics of GP contribute to the strong reaction between amorphous silica particles of GP and water, which results in the formation of denser and stronger calcium silicate hydrate gels. These two remarkable properties of GP could reduce setting time, ASR expansion, and workability and enhance mechanical and durability properties, especially with longer aging. It seems that the activation of pozzolanic properties is a lengthy process and that it takes time to harness the full effect. This peculiar behavior might explain the apparent contradiction in results despite the fact that GP particle size is the most influential factor. However, it has been reported that immersing GP in water can help address the mentioned issue and partially activate its pozzolanic properties prior to its use in concrete production.

It has been predominantly reported that not only are most of the pozzolanic properties of GP likely to be deactivated in larger GP particles, but their larger interfacial transition zones can also potentially weaken the cement hydration bonds. The proportion of GP used can also be influential, and excessive substitution of cement with GP may have the drawback of reducing the available portlandite content. The glassy texture of GP, which exhibits lower water absorption properties compared to cement particles, could be another contributing factor to the reduction in compressive strength and, overall, the quality of concrete.

In the majority of studies, it has been demonstrated that GP has the capacity to densify the internal structure of concrete and promote homogeneity when compared to control samples. This is supported by the results of the reduction in water absorption and chloride and sulfate ions penetration. It should be noted, however, that the carbonation attack represents the fact that even though the concrete using GP has a higher density, the carbonation concentration in concrete manufactured with GP is greater than that in control samples. The use of sodium carbonate (Na₂CO₃) in glass factories has been shown to decrease melting temperature and energy consumption. Sodium carbonate, also known as soda ash, has an essential role as a fluxing agent in glass production. Sodium carbonate, also known as soda ash, Sodium carbonate, commonly called soda ash, performs a vital function as a flux in glass manufacturing. Sodium carbonate lowers the melting point of raw materials by breaking down the intricate silica (SiO₂) network within the glass batch [8,9]. To be more precise, it could help to increase the movement of silica molecules and minimize glass melting temperatures. Moreover, it significantly improves energy efficiency by decreasing the required heat of melting, which leads to energy conservation and reduced operational costs. However, excessive usage can increase bubbles in the glass [8,9]. Consequently, the rich amount of sodium carbonate present in glass could react with the water (H₂O) in the mixing design, resulting in sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and carbon dioxide (CO₂). The concentration of carbon can, therefore, be increased even without the presence of external carbonation attacks, supporting the idea behind higher CO₂ concentrations in denser concrete.

7. Conclusions

In General, GP can be compelling and beneficial for both the concrete industry and the environment if implemented properly, which obviously still requires further studies to have the right understanding of this material. Based on the literature review, it seems that GP up to a certain amount could be beneficial for concrete due to its filler and pozzolanic effect, especially by aging, since the process of its pozzolanic activation takes time. However, a few studies showed the advantage of soaking GP, which could activate GP before use in mix design. Although this section has been studied for several years, topics like in-depth evaluation of the carbonation and sulfate attacks, wetting-drying and freeze-thaw cycles, simulating the actual environment by simultaneous attacks on concrete, simulating concrete durability behavior using numerical methods, a profound life cycle assessment, and making the material more socio-economically feasible are undiscovered accurately.