Because building materials are intended to provide durable and safe structures, they are subject to strict regulations designed to ensure that they do not pose a hazard during their use. But they must also not be harmful to humans or the environment at the end of their life cycle, regardless of whether they are reused, recycled, or disposed of in a landfill. The requirements that building materials/products must meet vary around the world, but all countries have at least some minimum requirements, whether through regulations, mandatory standards, certification procedures, and/or monitoring at construction sites. In Europe, regulations and standards are based on what is known as the “materials-based” approach, meaning that standards define not only the technical requirements, but also the materials from which products are made. Other parts of the world use the so-called “performance-based approach”, meaning that products must have a certain performance regardless of the materials from which they are made. The “materials-based” approach could present some obstacles or barriers for alkali activated products when it comes to providing the documentation needed to bring such products to the market, as there are no EN standards for alkali-activated products so far. The aim of this chapter is to provide information on the legislation for building materials in general but with a focus on alkali activated materials (AAM) around the world and to provide guidance on how to approach the subject.

Alkali-activated materials (AAMs), as eco-friendly alternatives to Portland cement (PC), have attracted increasing attention of researchers and users in the past decades. Despite the eco-friendly nature of AAMs, doubts about these materials as an essential ingredient of concrete exist, regarding, for example, their volume stability. One possible volume change concerns autogenous shrinkage. Autogenous shrinkage is the self-created volume reduction of materials due to chemical reactions without the need for substance or heat exchange with the environment. If the autogenous shrinkage of a binder material is too large, cracking might happen, which will seriously impair the durability of concrete. The aim of this chapter is to provide a state-of-the-art review on the autogenous shrinkage of AAMs. The different characteristics and mechanisms of autogenous shrinkage of different AAMs are reported. Corresponding shrinkage-mitigating strategies are summarized. Existing models to simulate and predict the autogenous shrinkage of AAMs are reviewed. Remarks are then given on testing methods of autogenous shrinkage, which link back to the determination of the magnitude of autogenous shrinkage of AAMs. Connections between autogenous shrinkage and other deformations such as drying shrinkage, thermal deformation and creep are also discussed. Research gaps and outlook on future research in this field are given in the end.

Although alkali-activated materials (AAMs) show great promise as viable substitutes for Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), they face numerous challenges in achieving widespread market acceptance. These challenges include the intricate chemistry of AAMs, technological and environmental complexities, inconsistency in the availability and quality of raw materials, and the absence of a well-established value chain for AAM production. Furthermore, legislative and regulatory frameworks are often lacking or unfavorable, and economic concerns related to scalability and competitiveness continue to pose barriers. Social acceptance remains limited, often due to unfamiliarity with the material and skepticism about its long-term performance. This chapter presents findings from various international research and development projects focused on advancing AAM technology. It highlights the pivotal role of pilot-scale trials in assessing the feasibility of AAM implementation, identifying technical and logistical challenges, and guiding further innovation. Additionally, the chapter showcases successful case studies and industrial applications of AAMs, positioning them as sustainable, high-performance alternatives to both traditional OPC and ceramic-based construction materials.

The recycling of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) bottom ash as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) has attracted global attention, driven by the increasing availability of this by-product and the demand for sustainable SCMs to lower CO₂ emissions from cement production. Currently, the widespread use of MSWI bottom ash in the cement industry is hindered by the lack of guidelines to regulate material composition, optimize pretreatment processes, and specify mix design requirements. This review compiles and analyzes literature data on mix design, microstructural evolution, fresh properties, mechanical properties, durability, leaching risks, and environmental impacts of MSWI bottom ash-blended cement pastes, mortars, and concretes. The analysis aims to assess the influence of the pretreatment and physicochemical properties of bottom ash¹ on the microstructure and performance of blended cementitious materials.² The Ash Impact Strength Index (AISI) is introduced to quantify the effects of various factors on compressive strength, enabling direct comparison across different studies. Based on the statistical analysis of the 28-day AISI, the key quality requirements for MSWI bottom ash as an SCM are proposed, along with the optimal mix design. This work provides valuable insights and practical guidance to support the integration of bottom ash into the cement industry.

Many (inter)national standards exist to evaluate the resistance of mortar and concrete to carbonation. When a carbonation coefficient is used for performance comparison of mixtures or service life prediction, the applied boundary conditions during curing, preconditioning and carbonation play a crucial role, specifically when using latent hydraulic or pozzolanic supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). An extensive interlaboratory test (ILT) with twenty two participating laboratories was set up in the framework of RILEM TC 281-CCC ‘Carbonation of Concrete with SCMs’. The carbonation depths and coefficients determined by following several (inter)national standards for three cement types (CEM I, CEM II/B-V, CEM III/B) both on mortar and concrete scale were statistically compared. The outcomes of this study showed that the carbonation rate based on the carbonation depths after 91 days exposure, compared to 56 days or less exposure duration, best approximates the slope of the linear regression and those 91 days carbonation depths can therefore be considered as a good estimate of the potential resistance to carbonation. All standards evaluated in this study ranked the three cement types in the same order of carbonation resistance. Unfortunately, large variations within and between laboratories complicate to draw clear conclusions regarding the effect of sample pre-conditioning and carbonation exposure conditions on the carbonation performance of the specimens tested. Nevertheless, it was identified that fresh and hardened state properties alone cannot be used to infer carbonation resistance of the mortars or concretes tested. It was also found that sealed curing results in larger carbonation depths compared to water curing. However, when water curing was reduced from 28 to 3 or 7 days, higher carbonation depths compared to sealed curing were observed. This increase is more pronounced for CEM I compared to CEM III mixes. The variation between laboratories is larger than the potential effect of raising the CO₂ concentration from 1 to 4%. Finally, concrete, for which the aggregate-to-cement factor was increased by 1.79 in comparison with mortar, had a carbonation coefficient 1.18 times the one of mortar.

Many standardised durability testing methods have been developed for Portland cement-based concretes, but require validation to determine whether they are also applicable to alkali-activated materials. To address this question, RILEM TC 247-DTA ‘Durability Testing of Alkali-Activated Materials’ carried out round robin testing of carbonation and chloride penetration test methods, applied to five different alkali-activated concretes based on fly ash, blast furnace slag or metakaolin. The methods appeared overall to demonstrate an intrinsic precision comparable to their precision when applied to conventional concretes. The ranking of test outcomes for pairs of concretes of similar binder chemistry was satisfactory, but rankings were not always reliable when comparing alkali-activated concretes based on different precursors. Accelerated carbonation testing gave similar results for fly ash-based and blast furnace slag-based alkali-activated concretes, whereas natural carbonation testing did not. Carbonation of concrete specimens was observed to have occurred already during curing, which has implications for extrapolation of carbonation testing results to longer service life periods. Accelerated chloride penetration testing according to NT BUILD 443 ranked the tested concretes consistently, while this was not the case for the rapid chloride migration test. Both of these chloride penetration testing methods exhibited comparatively low precision when applied to blast furnace slag-based concretes which are more resistant to chloride ingress than the other materials tested.