Fig. 21: Comparative compressive strength performance of UHPC incorporating different SCMs and alternative materials.
a GGBFS. b SS. c FA. d LP. e RM. f Mine tailings. g RHA. h GP/GS. i RCF/RCA. j CC/MK. k Natural pozzolans. l Alternative cements. m Nano-materials. Each panel shows the relationship between relative compressive strength and replacement level for a given replacement material type, with symbol shapes indicating the specific constituent replaced (cement, silica fume, micro-filler, aggregate, or combination) and symbol colours representing the testing age. The marginal distributions on the right of each panel project relative strengths across testing ages and are plotted as normal-distribution approximations, providing an overview of the corresponding strength development behaviour. To ensure meaningful comparison, particularly regarding strength evolution, only mixtures cured under standard ambient conditions are included. The dataset is limited to SCMs in their as-received form (i.e., without special treatments such as carbonation) and under single incorporation (i.e., excluding binary or ternary blends). Normalising compressive strength as relative strength isolates the influence of SCMs by eliminating variations associated with fibre content and differences in reference mix proportions across studies. Data sources for each material category are as follows: GGBFS43,102,117,128,149,151,152, SS94,158,162, FA43,102,117,128, LP16,102,193,194,197,203, RM200,202,203, MT109,110,112,145, RHA18,45,207 --209, GP/GS65,103,158,175,222,223, RCF/RCA53,95,105,118,132 -- 134,136,137,139, CC/MK72,116,117,119,237,239, natural pozzolans123,242 --245, alternative cements118,131,222,264,265, and nano-materials124,128,129.
