Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 68–76 | Cite as

Feasibility Study and Criteria for EAF Slag Utilization in Concrete Products

  • Alexandros Liapis
  • Eleftherios K. Anastasiou
  • Michail Papachristoforou
  • Ioanna Papayianni
Thematic Section: Slag Valorisation


The use of industrial byproducts in concrete applications is a scientific area of great interest over the past several years, and steel slags are acknowledged as having great potential for such use; however, the utilization rates are relatively low. The main barriers identified for this occurrence are failure to quantify benefits in terms of quality of the final product, environmental benefits, as well as cost reduction. The present research attempts to quantify these aspects for five different concrete applications examined as case studies. Laboratory-produced alternative concrete mixtures with steel slags are compared with ordinary reference concrete mixtures for their performance regarding mechanical characteristics and durability, environmental benefits using life cycle assessment, and cost estimation. The results show that there is great potential for the use of steel slag in concrete, but the benefits need to be determined for each specific use, since the values observed vary greatly depending on the application. Industrial pavement and heavyweight concretes seem to be the most favorable applications for steel slag, while the shotcrete and repair mortars examined benefited less from the use of slag.


Steel slag Concrete Life cycle assessment Cost estimation 



This research work was developed within the framework of the SLAGPROD Project 2011–2015, funded by the General Secretariat of Research and Technology in Greece. Also, part of the research was developed within a scholarship, funded by the Act “Support of research manpower, through the development of PhD research,” coming from resources of the OP “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning,” 2014–2020 with support from the European Social Fund and the Greek Government.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    van Oss HG (2017). Slag-iron and steel. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 88-89Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geiseler J (1999) Use of steelworks slag in Europe. Waste Manag Res 16(1):59–63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shi C (2002) Characteristics and cementitious properties of ladle slag fines from steel production. Cem Concr Res 32:459–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tossavainen M, Engström F, Yang Q, Menad N, Lidstrom Larsson M, Bjorkman B (2007) Characteristics of steel slag under different cooling conditions. Waste Manag 27:1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsakiridis PE, Papadimitriou GD, Tsivilis S, Koroneos C (2008) Utilization of steel slag for Portland cement clinker production. J Hazard Mater 152(2):805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asi I, Qasrawi H, Shalabi F (2007) Use of steel slag aggregate in asphalt concrete mixes. Can J Civ Eng 34:902–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pasetto M, Baldo N (2011) Mix design and performance analysis of asphalt concretes with electric arc furnace slag. Constr Build Mater 25(8):3458–3468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamal M, Gailan A.H, Haatan A, Hameed H (2002) Aggregate made from industrial unprocessed slag. In: Proceeding of the 6th international conference on concrete technology for developing countries, Amman, Jordan, 2002, pp. 1–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alizadeh R, Chini M, Ghods P, Hoseini M, Montazer S, Shekarchi M (2003) Utilization of electric arc furnace slag as aggregates in concrete-environmental issue. In: Proceedings of the 6th CANMET/ACI international conference on recent advances in concrete technology. Bucharest, Romania, 2003, pp. 451-464Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manso JM, Gonzalez JJ, Polanco JA (2004) Electric arc furnace slag in concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 16(6):639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anastasiou E, Papayianni I (2006) Criteria for the use of steel slag aggregates in concrete. In: Konsta-Gdoutos MS (ed) Measuring monitoring and modeling concrete properties. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manso JM, Polanco JA, Losañez M, González JJ (2006) Durability of concrete made with EAF slag as aggregate. Cement Concr Compos 28:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pellegrino C, Gaddo V (2009) Mechanical and durability characteristics of concrete containing EAF slag as aggregate. Cement Concr Compos 31:663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papayianni I, Anastasiou E (2010) Production of high-strength concrete using high volume of industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater 24:1412–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahmedzade P, Sengoz B (2009) Evaluation of steel slag coarse aggregate in hot mix asphalt concrete. J Hazard Mater 165:300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motz H, Geiseler J (2001) Products of steel slags an opportunity to save natural resources. Waste Manag 21:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Netinger I, Bjegović D, Vrhovac G (2011) Utilisation of steel slag as an aggregate in concrete. Mater Struct 44:1565–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO (2006) ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17:668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koroneos C, Dompros A (2007) Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece. Build Environ 42:2114–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santero NJ, Masanet E, Horvath A (2011) Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I: critical review. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anastasiou EK, Liapis A, Papayianni I (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of concrete road pavements using industrial by-products as alternative materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 101:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li X, Zhu Y, Zhang Z (2010) An LCA-based environmental impact assessment model for construction processes. Build Environ 45:766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blengini GA, Garbarino E (2010) Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J Clean Prod 18:1021–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coelho A, De Brito J (2012) Influence of construction and demolition waste management on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manag 32:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Blengini GA, Busto M, Fantoni M, Fino D (2012) Eco-efficient waste glass recycling: integrated waste management and green product development through LCA. Waste Manag 32:1000–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van den Heede P, De Belie N (2012) Environmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations. Cement Concr Compos 34:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krigsvoll G, Fumo M, Morbiducci R (2010) National and international standardization (International Organization for Standardization and European Committee for Standardization) relevant for sustainability in construction. Sustainability 2(12):3777–3791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the European Union L 312/3Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sasaki T (2015) Standardization of Iron and Steel Slag Products. Nippon Steel Sumitomo Metal Techn Rep 109:189–194Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    CEN (2008) EN 12620:2002+A1:2008—aggregates for concrete. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    CEN (2007) EN 13242:2002+A1:2007—aggregates for unbound and hydraulically bound materials for use in civil engineering work and road construction. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    CEN (2013) EN 1097-6:2013—tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates—Part 6: determination of particle density and water absorption. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    AASHTO (2002) AASHTO T 96—standard method of test for resistance to degradation of small-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    CEN (2008) EN 1367-6:2008—tests for thermal and weathering properties of aggregates—Part 6: determination of resistance to freezing and thawing in the presence of salt (NaCl). European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    CEN (2009) EN 1367-2:2009—tests for thermal and weathering properties of aggregates—Part 2: magnesium sulfate test. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mehta PK, Monteiro PJ (2006) Concrete: microstructure, properties, and materials. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    BSI (2016) BS EN 196-3:2016 – Methods of testing cement. Determination of setting times and soundness. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ASTM (1995) ASTM C593-95: standard specification for fly ash and other pozzolans for use with lime. American Society for Testing and Materials, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ASTM (2016) ASTM C311/C311M-16: standard Test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for use in Portland-cement concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sakr K, El-Hakim E (2005) Effect of high temperature or fire on heavy weight concrete properties. Cem Concr Res 35(3):590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Goedkoop Μ, Oele M, De Schryver A, Vieira M (2008) SimaPro Database—manual methods library. PRe Consultants Press, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    IPCC (2007) IPCC fourth assessment report Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    da Silveira N.O, Silva M.V.A.M, Agrizzi E.J, de Lana M.F (2005) ACERITA—steel slag with reduced expansion potential. In: Proceedings of the 4th European slag conference: slag products-providing solutions for global construction and other markets. 20th–21st June 2005, Euroslag Publication No. 3, Oulu, pp 145–157Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandros Liapis
    • 1
  • Eleftherios K. Anastasiou
    • 1
  • Michail Papachristoforou
    • 1
  • Ioanna Papayianni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations