Development and Performance Evaluation of Biochar–Fly Ash Concrete for Sustainable Construction Applications

Authors

  • Mamathashree Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (A Constituent College of Sri Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education), Maralur, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India
  • Usha S. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (A Constituent College of Sri Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education), Maralur, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India
  • Shivaraju G.D. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (A Constituent College of Sri Siddhartha Academy of Higher Education), Maralur, Tumakuru, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31033/IJEMR/16.5.2026.1950

Keywords:

Biochar, Coconut Shell, Fly Ash, Sustainable Concrete, Compressive Strength, Durability, Carbon Sequestration, EDX

Abstract

Portland cement production contributes roughly 7–8% of global CO₂ emissions, which has driven interest in supplementary cementitious materials and carbon-sequestering additives. This study evaluates coconut-shell-derived biochar, used as a cement-weight additive at 0–5%, in a fly ash blended concrete system. Biochar was characterized by EDX (carbon 77–80%, oxygen 15–16%) and physical tests (specific gravity 1.60, fineness modulus 1.83, water absorption 15.8%). Concrete specimens were tested for compressive, split tensile and flexural strength at 7, 14 and 28 days, and for strength loss after sulphate attack, chloride attack and alternate wet–dry cycles. A 1% biochar dose gave the highest 28-day compressive strength (33.8 MPa, +7.0% over the 31.6 MPa control), and 2% gave 33.2 MPa (+5.1%). Doses of 3% and above gave no gain or a reduction. Early-age (7- and 14-day) split tensile and flexural strength improved at 1–3%, but 28-day tensile and flexural strengths were below the control for all dosages. Durability was best at 2% biochar, where strength loss was 2.2% (sulphate), 1.8% (chloride) and 2.8% (wet–dry), against 8.5%, 7.0% and 9.0% for the control. The results indicate that a low biochar dosage of about 1–2% can improve compressive strength and durability, while higher dosages are detrimental.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Senadheera, S. S., et al. (2023). Application of biochar in concrete – A review. Construction and Building Materials.

Barbhuiya, S. (2024). Biochar-concrete: A comprehensive review of properties.

Aman, A. M. N. (2022). Biochar as cement replacement to enhance concrete.

Room, S. (2024). Biochar-enhanced carbon-negative and sustainable cementitious composites. Sustainability.

Tee, K. F. (2023). Biochar in cementitious material: a review on physical, chemical, mechanical and durability aspects. AIMS Materials.

Mishra, G., et al. (2023). Optimization of biochar and fly ash to improve mechanical properties.

Praneeth, S., et al. (2025). Low carbon biochar amended fly ash–cement building blocks.

Wu, F., et al. (2025). Biochar modification enhances mechanical and durability properties.

Patel, R., et al. (2025). Study of biochar in cementitious materials. Scientific Reports.

Aman (2022–2024). Various tests on biochar as partial replacement.

Bhavana, K. Y., Usha, S., Mallesh, T. V., & Shiva Raju, G. D. (2024). Numerical simulation of eco sustainable construction and demolition waste (CDW) based geopolymer concrete blocks as coarse aggregates by using ANSYS software. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1327(1), p. 012016.

Usha, S., Shivaraju, G. D., Mallesh, T. V., Prathibha, R. T., & Navya, S. M. (2022). Performance assessment of fly-ash aggregates in concrete. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S9), 3858–3864.

Published

2026-10-21
CITATION
DOI: 10.31033/IJEMR/16.5.2026.1950
Published: 2026-10-21

How to Cite

Mamathashree, Usha, S., & Shivaraju, G. (2026). Development and Performance Evaluation of Biochar–Fly Ash Concrete for Sustainable Construction Applications. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 16(5), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.31033/IJEMR/16.5.2026.1950