Research Article
Selection of Sustainable Supplementary Concrete Materials Using OSM-AHP-TOPSIS Approach
Table 2
Candidate materials for shortlisting of supplementary concrete material.
| | Supplementary material | % of CaOa | Surface areaa | Concrete strengthb | Chloride resistanceb | Costc | Optimal Score |
| | Limestone | 40–55 | 200–400 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.265 | | Blast furnace slag | 30–45 | 400–600 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0.381 | | Metakaolin | 0.5–2 | 10,000–25,000 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0.308 | | Fly ash | 10–35 | 300–500 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0.328 | | Rise husk ash | 0.5–1 | 10,000–18,000 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0.206 | | Silica fume | 0.5–1 | 15,000–30,000 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0.308 | | Nanocement | 50–65 | 1000,000–800,000 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0.800 | | Nanoparticles supp. material | 1–10 | 900,000–500,000 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0.525 | | Recycled aggregate | 1–3 | 0.1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0.107 | | Waste glass | 5–10 | 200–400 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0.276 | | Natural pozolona | 10–30 | 300–400 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0.270 | | OSM weight | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | — |
|
|
aQuantitative values normalized for weights. b5, excellent; 4, very good; 3, good; 2, fair; 1, poor. c5, very inexpensive; 4, inexpensive; 3, moderate price; 2, expensive; 1, very expensive.
|
