Ash activated geopolymer cement compositions and methods

Abstract

Alkali-activated binders (AAB) and associated compositions are an alternative to portland cement (PC), offering a potential binding system for a low-carbon materials. Almond ash AABs have notably lower emissions of GHG and several key air pollutants when compared to conventional synthetic chemical-based AAB mortars. The results demonstrate that AAB mortars with 50% and 100% almond ash replacement of synthetic chemical-alkali resources levels result in an improved combination of GHG emissions to compressive strength ratio relative to conventional portland cement mortars. When considering the scale of PC consumption, results indicate that 0.08 to 0.47 million metric tons of GHG emissions could be avoided by substituting chemical-based AAB with almond shell ash binders in the production of concrete in California.

Description

ASH ACTIVATED GEOPOLYMER CEMENT COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims priority to, and the benefit of, U.S. provisional patent application serial number 63 / 700,736 filed on September 29, 2024, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

[0002] Not Applicable NOTICE OF MATERIAL SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

[0003] A portion of the material in this patent document may be subject to copyright protection under the copyright laws of the United States and of other countries. The owner of the copyright rights has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the United States Patent and Trademark Office publicly available file or records but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. The copyright owner does not hereby waive any of its rights to have this patent document maintained in secrecy, including without limitation its rights pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14. BACKGROUND

[0004] 1. Technical Field

[0005] This technology pertains generally to construction material compositions and manufacturing and more particularly to almond ash activated geopolymer cements and alkali-activated binders (AAB). The material production methods produce lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than portland cement compositions and AAB made with chemical alkalis. The resulting AAB demonstrates performance characteristics that are comparable to or exceed those produced using portland cement binders or AABs made UC-2024-598-2-PCT -1-with alkali activators.

[0006] 2. Background

[0007] Worldwide, the demand for concrete for the construction of buildings, roadways and bridges is steadily rising. Cement is a hydraulic binder that, when combined with water, forms hydrate minerals that hold together aggregates (gravel or crushed rocks) to form concrete and other cement- based composites. Approximately 12% of the volume of conventional concrete is portland cement, which serves as the mineral adhesive that binds the aggregates together.

[0008] The high CO2emissions associated with concrete production are largely attributed to the portland cement component. Despite its relatively minor proportion in concrete, portland cement is accountable for over 80% of the GHG associated with concrete production. Concrete and cement production account for approximately 7% to 8% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

[0009] Current production of portland cement exceeds 4 billion metric tons annually. This volume of production is expected to rise in the coming years because it is estimated that approximately 1 billion more people worldwide will need new and upgraded infrastructure in urban areas by 2030. Concrete is a dominant material used for infrastructure and buildings that will be needed to support these populations.

[0010] As the urgency to reduce GHG emissions grows, numerous global and local mitigation goals have been established. The global cement industry aims to cut CO2 emissions by 20% by 2030 as compared to 2020 levels and achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Strategies to achieve these goals include improving kiln efficiency, using cleaner energy, employing carbon capture and utilization strategies (CCUS), and reducing clinker (i.e., the kilned, quenched material in portland cement) with sustainable low-carbon alternatives. Unfortunately, there is little room left for further improvements in the efficiency of cement kilns, as many locations are using new more efficient kilns or have performed kiln efficiency improvements to lower costs of production.

[0011] Furthermore, decarbonization of the electricity mix across the globe for UC-2024-598-2-PCT -2-cement and concrete production results in only a 5% reduction in GHG emissions of portland cement production. Electrifying the cement kiln and switching to renewable energy could lead to an 11% reduction in GHG emissions. However, even with cleaner energy and improved kiln efficiency, the production of portland cement will still emit GHGs due to the release of CO2during calcination (i.e., the decarbonation of limestone to support the production of reactive calcium compounds). CCUS facilities have been proposed to capture the CO2 emissions, but the installation of requisite facilities and infrastructure to support CCUS can be costly, time-, and energy- consuming.

[0012] Accordingly, there is a need for improved materials and methods for producing cement and concrete materials that will address these challenges. BRIEF SUMMARY

[0013] Compositions and methods of production of geopolymer cements and concrete are provided. The compositions may completely or partially substitute the hydraulic binder in known formulations with a bioash, such as almond shell ash, and also replace chemicals used in traditional AABs, which can produce mortars and concrete materials with structural characteristics that can be optimized.

[0014] Geopolymer concrete is based on an aluminosilicate mixed with an alkaline reagent, e.g., sodium or potassium soluble silicates, and water. AAB have emerged as a promising low-carbon binder alternative that can have a fraction of the GHG emissions and form materials like concrete without the need for portland cement. Despite its potential, AAB concrete has encountered limited adoption due to practical challenges, notably the requirement for on-site storage of caustic alkalis, which are both costly and can be hazardous.

[0015] Some biomass ashes, such as almond shell ash or almond hull (husk) ash, rice hull ash, husk ash, and cocoa ash, are rich in potassium, thus making them strong, climate-friendly alternatives to replace caustic and costly chemical activators, such as potassium hydroxide and potassium carbonate.

[0016] The AAB compositions that are illustrated replace up to 100% of the UC-2024-598-2-PCT -3-chemical-based potassium hydroxide (KOH Solution) in the alkali-activated mortars (i.e., KH-CRL) with almond shell ash (ASA). One preferred AAB mortar mixture design is “ANDSHL 100” as shown in the tables, and it is made of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) (442 kg / m3), fine aggregate (1164 kg / m3), water (221 kg / m3), ASA (211 kg / m3), and a superplasticizer (29 kg / m3).

[0017] The almond shell ashes were obtained from an ashing temperature of 575°C to 650°C, where the ashing length of time was 10-12 hours. Of notable interest is that the AAB mortar mixture design with 100% ASA was shown to have a compressive strength at 28 days of 23.2 (MPa), which is higher than the compressive strength at 28 days of 21.2 MPa for the KH-CRL mixture design. Furthermore, the environmental impact of the "ANDSHL 100" mixture design outperformed that of KHL-CRL on all air pollutant emissions per cubic meter of mortar, as well as GHG emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0018] In one embodiment, the composition also included a water-to-precursor ratio of 0.45, a sand-to-coarse aggregate ratio of 0.74, and a target K2O molality of 2. Based on the K2O content of 25.28 (wt. %) and 19.65 (wt. %) in WDF-SHL and AND-SHL ash, respectively, it was calculated that 11 kg / m3of WDF-SHL ash and 15 kg / m3of AND-SHL ash is required to replace 10% of chemical-based KOH in 1 cubic meter of AAB-GGBFS concrete.

[0019] Life cycle and technoeconomic assessment methodologies were also applied to analyze the anticipated GHG and air pollutant emissions, as well as costs, associated with producing a class of biomass ash AAB mixtures utilizing almond ash as a replacement for synthetic chemical-based alkali activators, namely potassium hydroxide (KOH)-activated and potassium carbonate (K2CO3)-activated binders, relative to baseline chemical AAB mortars and a PC mortar. Any impacts on compressive strength associated with these alternative mixtures were identified, along with the potential for these resources to be scaled to support a similar material demand level as conventional PC concrete.

[0020] In addition, findings show that almond ash AABs have notably lower emissions of GHG and several key air pollutants when compared to conventional synthetic chemical-based AAB mortars. The results demonstrate UC-2024-598-2-PCT -4-that AAB mortars with 50% and 100% almond ash replacement of synthetic chemical-alkali resources levels result in an improved combination of GHG emissions to compressive strength ratio relative to a conventional PC mortar. When considering the scale of PC consumption, results indicate that 0.08 to 0.47 million metric tons of GHG emissions could be avoided by substituting chemical-based AAB with almond shell ash binders in the production of concrete in California, for example. Accordingly, AAB utilizing potassium-rich biomass ashes, such as almond shell and hull ash provide an alternative to portland cement and chemically activated AABs, offering a lower carbon binding system and materials.

[0021] Further aspects of the technology described herein will be brought out in the following portions of the specification, wherein the detailed description is for the purpose of fully disclosing preferred embodiments of the technology without placing limitations thereon. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0022] The technology described herein will be more fully understood by reference to the following drawings which are for illustrative purposes only:

[0023] FIG.1 is a flow diagram and system boundary of environmental impact assessment.

[0024] FIG.2 is a diagram of greenhouse gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0025] FIG.3 is a plot of portions of GHG emissions of selected mixtures: (a) PC-CRL; (b) KH-CRL; (c) KC-CRL; (d) ANDSHL 100.

[0026] FIG.4A is a graph of the NOX gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0027] FIG.4B is a graph of the SOX gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0028] FIG.4C is a graph of the PM10gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0029] FIG.4D is a graph of the PM2.5 gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0030] FIG.4E is a graph of the VOC gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar.

[0031] FIG.4F is a graph of the CO gas emissions per cubic meter of mortar. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -5-

[0032] FIG.5 is a plot of the cost range of various mixtures according to one embodiment of the technology.

[0033] FIG.6 is a plot of compressive strength of tested biomass ashes as compared to the hydroxide control. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0034] Referring more specifically to the drawings, for illustrative purposes, materials with alkali-activated binders (AAB) utilizing potassium rich ashes as alternative to portland cement and methods for production are generally shown. Several embodiments of the technology are described generally in FIG.1 to FIG.6 to illustrate the characteristics and functionality of the biologically sourced ash mortar materials and production methods. It will be appreciated that the methods may vary as to the specific steps and sequence, and the compositions may vary as to structural details without departing from the basic concepts as disclosed herein. The method steps are merely exemplary of the order that these steps may occur. The steps may occur in any order that is desired, such that it still performs the goals of the claimed technology.

[0035] Compositions and methods for producing geopolymer cements and alkali-activated binders (AAB) that are an alternative to portland cement (PC), offering a binding system for a low-carbon construction material are illustrated with almond shell ash. For example, replacement of the chemical reagent activator by almond shell ash (10% to 100% of activator) can reduce GHG emissions by 9% to 53%.

[0036] As used herein, the term “biomass residue ash” means an ash produced from one or more plant sources with a potassium oxide content of approximately 19% or higher.

[0037] The term almond ash (ASA) shall mean “almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash.”

[0038] The term “latent hydraulic binder” means a conventional portland cement or equivalent inorganic binder that remains from a partial substitution with a biomass residue ash.

[0039] The term “fine aggregate” means gravels with stone diameters of UC-2024-598-2-PCT -6-approximately 5 mm or less.

[0040] The term “plasticizer” or means conventional mortar plasticizers such as sulfonated naphthalene and melamine formaldehyde condensates, acetone formaldehyde condensate, PMS (polymelamine sulfonate), and PNS (polynaphthalene sulfonate.

[0041] Combinations of different biomass ashes can also be used along with the almond shell ash. For example, coffee husk ash (CHA) that is derived from burning residue from coffee bean production can be used. Similarly, rice husk ash (RHA) is a bio-derived waste from burning rice husks to generate electricity that may be used. RHA contains reactive amorphous silica that can be used as a pozzolan material. Sugar cane straw ash (SCSA) is waste derived from sugar cane harvesting during the combustion of sugar cane straw to produce energy.

[0042] Calcium carbide slag (CCS), Red mud (RM), Soda scraps (SDS), Lithium hydroxide (LiOH), cleaning solutions (CS), waste glass (WG), and desulphurization dust (DeS-dust) and the like can be used in the compositions as alternative or additional alkaline activators. For example, CCS is an industrial byproduct of acetylene production. Acetylene is a key component of many advanced chemicals (e.g., PVC). It is produced in either oil-based or coal-based processes. Red mud is a mineral tailing and byproduct that originates during the alumina extraction from bauxite ores using the Bayer process. SDS are waste products generated during the production of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), also known as soda ash. Namely, soda scraps are primarily produced in the ammonia alkali process. LiOH is an inorganic compound produced industrially from lithium carbonate or lithium sulfate. In recent efforts to reduce waste streams, LiOH can also be recovered from lithium-ion batteries. CS are typically highly alkaline NaOH-based liquids used to clean aluminum extrusion dies. At the end of its life cycle, CS typically contains both NaOH and sodium aluminate. WG is recyclable waste that exhibits pozzolanic properties. It is generated from industrial processes and human activities.

[0043] In another embodiment, the composition has an additional element of a source of lime. Preferably, the lime source comes from other industrial UC-2024-598-2-PCT -7-wastes such as paper mill waste, and cement or lime kiln dust.

[0044] The technical performance of almond shell ash in AAB mortars was assessed and compared to illustrate the technology. Reagent-grade chemical activators were gradually substituted with almond shell ash, up to 100%, and the mechanical properties of the resulting mortar were evaluated.

[0045] Additionally, an environmental life cycle assessment was conducted to compare the GHG emissions, as well as several key air pollutant emissions, associated with almond shell ash-activated mortars compared to those activated with reagent-grade chemicals, as well as traditional mortars utilizing portland cement, which is the current industry practice. Finally, whether almond shell and hull ashes, if produced at scale, could address the critical need for more environmentally friendly cementitious materials in the California concrete sector was evaluated.

[0046] Almond shell ash was produced using a laboratory-scale furnace. The use of this ash was compared to two synthetic chemical-based activators, namely (KOH) and (K2CO3). Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), a non-reagent activator containing carbonates, was applied as a solid precursor. Three replacement levels for KOH and K2CO3 with almond ash of 10%, 50%, and 100% were investigated, respectively. Almond shells to produce biomass ash were collected from Anderson and Wonderful farms in Northern California (the ash from these shells are referred to herein as ANDSHL and WDFSHL, respectively).

[0047] Table 1 shows the compositions and naming conventions for the investigated AAB mortars. The water-to-precursor ratios of KOH and K2CO3 binders were 0.5 and 0.45, respectively, while the water-to-precursor ratio for the 100% replacement level binders (WDFSHL100 and ANDSHL100) was 0.5. The sand-to-precursor ratio was 2.63 for KOH and K2CO3binders. The concentration of K2O for both the KOH and K2CO3 binders was 2 moles of K2O per liter of water. Table 2 shows the KOH-activated mixtures with ash replacements of 10%, 50% and 100%. The table includes a portland limestone cement (PLC) based control. The masses of the constituents are indicated in kg / m3. Table 3 shows the K2CO3 activated mixtures with Anderson Almond Shell Ash and Wonderful Almond Shell Ash replacements UC-2024-598-2-PCT -8-of inorganic activator. The mass of constituents is in kg / m3.

[0048] The AAB mortar cube specimens were sealed and double bagged and then oven-cured at 40°C for 28 days. PC mortar specimen (PC-CRL) was cured in a water bath at 23°C according to ASTM C31 / C31M-19. Compressive strengths were tested after 28 days of curing, which are also shown in Table 2 and Table 3 and FIG.3 for the various activator mixtures. The 28-day compressive strength of control binders for KOH (KH-CRL) and K₂CO₃ (KC-CRL) were 21.2 MPa and 34.7 MPa, respectively. The 100% replacement mixes are of particular interest as they are activated solely by almond biomass ash.

[0049] At a 100% replacement level, WDFSHL100 had a 9% higher average strength than the hydroxide-activated control mix (KH-CRL), and the strength of ANDSHL100 was 11.8% lower than that of KH-CRL, but neither result is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. Their strengths, however, are much lower than KC-CRL. While the ashes contain carbonates as an active component, not all K2O present in the ash is likely in soluble form. Mixes placed at 10% and 50% replacement levels of K2O for both activators were also similar to their respective control systems (KH-CRL, KC-CRL).

[0050] Environmental impact and technoeconomic assessments of the utilization of almond ash in AAB mixtures and mortars demonstrated that significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved by adopting AAB mixtures with biomass residue ash illustrated with almond shell ash compositions.

[0051] Almond shell ash AAB mortars consistently showed lower GHG, NOX, SOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, and CO emissions compared to the baseline chemical AAB mortars, despite additional curing energy and transport distances. However, AAB mortars had higher NOXand VOC emissions than PC mortar due to long transport distances of GGBFS and chemical reagents as well as from notable emissions from chemical reagents manufacturing, highlighting the importance of local resource availability and material allocation for effective GHG reduction in AAB concrete.

[0052] The GHG emissions results showed that significant reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved by adopting AAB mixtures with almond shell ash. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -9-It should be noted that the curing process and material transportation significantly affect GHG emissions and must be considered when accounting for life cycle GHG emissions.

[0053] Despite the lower strengths of the AAB mortars compared to the PC mortar in this study, AAB mortars with 50% and 100% replacement levels showed better ratios of GHG emissions to compressive strength than the PC mortar due to a significant reduction in GHG emissions of the AAB mortars.

[0054] Scaling emissions reduction based on resource availability; findings suggest up to 0.47 million metric tons of GHG emissions could be avoided annually by using almond shell ash AAB concrete in California.

[0055] High transportation costs of GGBFS, the chemical KOH, K2CO3, and superplasticizer significantly increase the total costs of AAB concrete, highlighting the need for utilizing local resources for market feasibility while also diverting almond shells and hulls from landfills or unused stockpiles with high risk of combustion.

[0056] The technology described herein may be better understood with reference to the accompanying examples, which are intended for purposes of illustration only and should not be construed as in any sense limiting the scope of the technology described herein as defined in the claims appended hereto.

[0057] Example 1

[0058] To conduct environmental impact, technoeconomic, and resource availability assessments, the production of this AAB in Sacramento, California, for the year 2020 was modeled as a system 10 as shown in FIG.1. The system 10 accounts for the production inputs for the components for the production of the final materials. Each constituent of the binder compositions was considered in terms of raw material sourcing, processing, and transport. In addition, batching and curing were considered. For this example, the production of most of the constituents and the mortars batching were modeled as occurring within the Northern California region, utilizing the average kiln efficiency of California, the national average for kiln fuel compositions, and the average mix for electricity grids in California.

[0059] Portland cement 12 is produced within the state (approximately 10 UC-2024-598-2-PCT -10-million metric tons in 2020), and the impacts that are tied to the production of portland limestone cement (PLC) were considered, namely modeled as an interground blend of 85% PC and 15% limestone. The portland cement 12 inputs include raw material acquisition 14; crushing, grinding, and milling procedures 16; thermal processing 18 and grinding and milling of the final cement material 20. The transportation distance was estimated to be 130.6 km-ton of portland cement (PLC) by truck. Water was assumed to be locally available.

[0060] Granulated and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) materials 22 are optional but may be included into the compositions. California does not produce GGBFS, so this slag was modeled as an imported 24 industry acquisition from Pennsylvania and transported over 4,500 km by rail.

[0061] In 2020, California produced 1,412,940 metric tons of almonds, approximately 80% of the world’s supply. Assuming each kg of almond has a resultant 0.6 kg of almond shells (dry basis), an estimated 847,764 metric tons of almond shells could have been recovered in 2020 in California. Ash content from almond shells ash was reported as 5.83 (wt.%) and 7.50 (wt. %) by Wonderful Company and Anderson Farm, respectively; therefore, an average almond shell ash content of 6.7% was used to estimate that 56,503 metric tons of almond shell ash could have been produced in California for 2020.

[0062] The almond ash production 26 is an industry byproduct acquisition 28 of almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash produced by the almond industry. The production of almond shell ash was treated as a residual output from the almond processing industry and, subsequently, the energy production industry; thus, no additional environmental burdens were allocated to this ash, and only transportation of the ash to the mortar batching site and grinding and milling of the ash 30 was considered. It was assumed that the almond shell ash was produced at the almond hulling / shelling facility. It should be noted that the locations of almond hulling / shelling facilities can affect the transportation distances of the materials to the concrete producers and, therefore, influence the UC-2024-598-2-PCT -11-environmental impacts of the end products.

[0063] Aggregates 32 for the composition are acquired 34 and transported 44 from the source. Fine aggregates were modeled as locally sourced with a transportation distance of 61 km by truck from the quarry to the batching site 46. In some cases, the aggregates need to be sized by crushing, grinding, and sieving 36.

[0064] The synthetic chemical-based alkaline activators and superplasticizers 38 were assumed to be acquired 40 and imported from the Gulf Coast regions of the United States, which maintain a substantial amount of chemical manufacturing 42. The transport was assumed to be 3,168 km from Gulf Coast regions by truck.

[0065] All of the materials are ultimately transported 44, mixed and batched 46 for final distribution and use 48.

[0066] A life cycle assessment was performed for almond hull ashes. An attributional environmental impact assessment methodology was followed. As illustrated in FIG.1, this system adopts a cradle-to-gate approach, in which emissions were assessed from raw material acquisition through the production “gate”, which was presumed to be the ready-mix or precast concrete producer.

[0067] A declared unit of 1 m3of mortar was considered to determine life cycle inventories (LCI) and compare the environmental impacts. To assess GHG emissions, the impacts of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) were consolidated their impacts into a single metric of CO2- equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions, based on the 100-year global warming potentials defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023). We also assess emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), particular matter less than 10 µm (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5).

[0068] Inventories for the AAB mortars that were assessed were pulled from three primary datasets. Energy mixes, electricity grids, and standard concrete constituents and processing methods (e.g., batching) were adopted from the environmental inventories and impact assessment frameworks from UC-2024-598-2-PCT -12-OpenConcrete, an open-source environmental quantification platform. Ecoinvent 3 was used for the study of alkaline activators and the superplasticizer. The energy needed for grinding and milling GGBFS and almond shell ash was adopted from the literature, and then the California electricity grid was used to assess the associated energy-derived emissions.

[0069] The emission factors and sources of producing and processing concrete constituents, alkaline activators, and almond shell ash were evaluated. It was determined that about 0.77 MJ energy (including 0.095 kWh of electricity and 0.009 m3of natural gas was needed to grind and mill 1 kg of GGBFS. Similarly, 0.72 MJ energy (0.2 kWh electricity) was needed to grind and mill 1 kg of almond shell ash. GGBFS, cement, and fine aggregate were transported by various modes, including rail and truck transportation.

[0070] The energy for heating one cubic meter of AAB mortar from 21°C to 75°C was estimated to be 103 MJ / m3with an estimated heat loss of 2.60 MJ / h. Assuming the energy for heating and heat loss are linear to temperature, the total energy for heating the cubes from ambient temperature (20°C) to a curing temperature (40°C) and then maintaining the sample under 40°C for 28 days before testing was found to be 685 MJ / m3. The curing temperature of the PLC mixture was 23°C. Assuming 1000 kg of water is needed to cure one cubic meter of PLC mortar. The heat capacity of water is 0.0042 MJ per kg of water per Celsius degree. Therefore, the energy for heating one cubic meter of PC mortar from 20°C to 23°C is 12.6 MJ / m3, with an estimated heat loss of 4.2 MJ / h. Again, assuming the energy for heating and heat loss are linear to temperature, the total energy for heating the PC cubes from ambient temperature (20°C) to curing temperature (23°C) and then maintaining the sample under 23°C for 28 days before testing is 365 MJ / m3. This additional energy demand of AAB mortars beyond what PC mortar would require was considered within the inventory.

[0071] Example 2

[0072] The potential environmental impacts of the materials and production including the material volume-based greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions relative to compressive strength were evaluated. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -13-

[0073] Mixtures with AABs incorporating different replacement levels of almond shell ash demonstrated 8% to 56% decreases in GHG emissions compared to synthetic chemical-based alkali-activated mixtures of KH-CRL and KC-CRL as shown in FIG.2. Simultaneously, the total GHG emissions of KH-CRL (253 kg of CO2-eq / m3) and KC-CRL (308 kg of CO2-eq / m3) mixtures were 39% and 26% lower than that of PC-CRL mixture (415 kg of CO2-eq / m3), respectively. These GHG emissions reductions were achieved by negating the need for portland cement. While they are not the largest constituent by mass, the emissions of the synthetic chemical-based alkali-activators are still notable (127 kg of CO2-eq / m3of mortar from KOH solution, 180 kg of CO2- eq / m3from K2CO3 solution). Thus, the use of almond shell ash (less than 55 kg of CO2-eq / m3) instead of synthetic chemical-based alkali activators results in even lower emissions being achieved over the KH-CRL and KC-CRL compositions. For instance, taking the Anderson almond shell ash mixtures, the GHG emissions for KH-ANDSHL10 and KH- ANDSHL 50 mixtures decreased GHG emissions by about 9% and 29%, respectively, relative to the KH-CRL mixture. A similar reduction to Anderson almond shell ash mixtures was observed in mixtures containing Wonderful almond shell ash as processing demands for these ashes (e.g., grinding, milling) were considered equivalent.

[0074] Although the effectiveness of almond shell ash mixtures in reducing GHG emissions diminishes at higher concentrations of almond shell ash due to the need for chemical admixtures to improve workability, the mixtures with 100% almond shell ash replacement still exhibited the lowest GHG emissions. For instance, the GHG emissions for the ANDSHL100 and WDFSHL100 mixture were 46.0% and 46.5% lower than that of the KH-CRL mixture, respectively. Furthermore, the GHG emissions for the ANDSHL100 and WDFSHL100 mixtures were 67.1% and 67.4% lower than those of the PC- CRL mixture, respectively.

[0075] In California, for example, an estimated 56,503 metric tons of almond shell ash could have been produced in 2020. For each cubic meter of mortars, at replacement levels of 10%, 50%, and 100%, almond shell ash AAB mortars showed 162 kg, 223 kg, and 279 kg less GHG emissions compared to the PC UC-2024-598-2-PCT -14-mortar on average. Based on the masses of the constituents shown in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, this results in 0.08 to 0.47 million metric tons of GHG emissions that could be avoided annually by using almond shell ash AAB concrete in California.

[0076] The curing process and raw material transportation (A2) significantly affect GHG emissions. Our estimates suggest curing results in 27.4 kg and 51.4 kg of CO2-eq / m3of the PC mixture and other mixtures, respectively, with higher emissions for the AAB mixtures due to their higher curing temperature. Transportation of all constituents combined contributes between 13.3 kg and 57.6 kg of CO2-eq / m3. The GHG emissions of transportation from PC-CRL were 76% lower than the KH-CRL due to the long transportation distances of the KOH and GGBFS materials. However, the overall portions of GHG emissions from transportation were relatively low compared to the total GHG emissions for all the mixtures as plotted in FIG.3. For example, the transportation-associated GHG emissions were 3% of the total GHG emissions for the PC-CRL and a range of 19% to 32 % of the total GHG emissions for the AAB mixtures.

[0077] While all the AAB mixtures showed significantly lower GHG emissions compared to PC-CRL, differences in compressive strength resulted in ratios of GHG emissions to compressive strength that do not follow this same trend as seen in FIG.3. For the KOH mixtures, the control mixture of KH-CRL and the 10% replacement mixture of KH-ANDSHL10 showed 19.2% and 16.1% higher ratios of GHG emissions to compressive strength than that of the PC-CRL mixture, respectively. As the replacement level increases, the general trend of GHG emissions to compressive strength ratio decreases, except for the ANDSHL 100 mixture. This outlier was attributed to the lower compressive strength of the ANDSHL 100 mixture (18.7 MPa) compared to the PC-CRL mixture (41.5 MPa). K2CO3 mixtures showed lower GHG emissions to compressive strength ratios than the PC-CRL mixture, regardless of replacement levels.

[0078] The KC-ANDSHL 50 mixture (50% replacement with Anderson almond shell ash) achieved the best combination of GHG emissions and compressive strength, demonstrating relatively high compressive strength and low UC-2024-598-2-PCT -15-environmental impacts. The source of almond shell ash also influences the GHG emissions to compressive strength ratios; a range of 9% to 25% difference between the Anderson shell ash and the Wonderful shell ash mixtures was noted.

[0079] Although not as widely discussed as GHG emissions, manufacturing concrete and its constituents also contributes to other impacts, such as the emission of various air pollutants. Because air pollutant emissions drive many regulatory mechanisms, co-benefits to air pollutant emissions reduction can benefit the implementation of GHG emissions reduction strategies. Given the potential health impacts of air pollutants, evaluating these emissions is crucial for informing policy to regulate the production of cement-based materials.

[0080] The findings show that the use of almond shell ash in the mixtures led to decreases in emissions of NOX, SOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, and CO within the ranges 8% to 49%, 10% to 62%, 8% to 53%, 7% to 50%, 10% to 92%, 7% to 40%, respectively, relative to the control AAB mixtures are shown in FIG.4A to FIG.4F. These lower emissions are primarily due to the reduction of reagent activators (KOH and K2CO3), which have high emissions from their manufacturing process.

[0081] While the benefits of reducing air pollution are significant from using almond shell ash to replace reagent activators, certain air pollution is higher than that of the PC mixture. For example, NOX was reduced by 8% to 49% compared to the control AAB mixtures, but even at 100% replacement level, the NOXof ANDSHL100 and WDFSHL100 mixture were still 93% and 94%, higher than that of the PC-CRL mixture, respectively.

[0082] Similarly, the VOC emissions of the ANDSHL100 and WDFSHL100 mixture were 197% and 200% higher than that of the PC-CRL mixture, respectively. These increases in emissions are due to the long transport distance of GGBFS, chemical reagents, and superplasticizers. It should be noted that if transportation of those constituents was excluded, the NOX and VOC emissions of ANDSHL100 and WDFSHL100 mixtures were lower compared to the PC-CRL mixture.

[0083] Example 3

[0084] A technoeconomic analysis was also conducted. Cost ranges for PC- UC-2024-598-2-PCT -16-CRL and the AAB mixtures, based on ranges of costs from the constituents used, are shown in FIG.5 and Table 4. These findings indicate that the transportation costs and chemical costs drive notable increases for the AAB mixtures relative to the PC-CRL, namely, driven by the long transport distances of GGBFS, KOH, K2CO3, and superplasticizer. Substituting KOH and K2CO3with almond shell ash would decrease the costs of AAB mortar since almond shell ash was assumed to be a zero-cost byproduct, locally available (thus avoiding long transport distances), and offering regional solutions for the local concrete industry. Driven by differences in the transport of constituents, the WDFSHL offers a slightly more competitive price than ANDSHL, which can be seen in the 50% replacement of KOH and K2CO3 scenario. When synthetic chemical-based alkali activators are replaced 100% with almond shell ash, the price of mortar increases due to the high cost of superplasticizers.

[0085] For example, when the mid prices for the materials and processes were considered, the transportation cost of PC-CRL was only 9% of the total costs. However, the transportation costs of AAB concrete were in the range of 44% to 52% of the total costs. Others have also shown notable contributions to cost ranging between 10% and 30% of the mixture. The average curing costs of the PC-CRL and the AAB concrete were $28 / m3and $53 / m3, respectively, and accounted for 18% to 28% of the total costs. Overall, the reduction in costs for mixtures incorporating almond ash relative to the alkali- activated control mixtures (i.e., KC-CRL and KH-CRL) vary between 5% to 17% for KOH-activated mixtures and 7% to 21% for K2CO3 activated mixtures. It should be noted that there is an overlap in prices (i.e., the lowest cost for each of the AAB mixtures is below the greatest cost estimated for the PC- CRL). However, the range in costs was also greater for the AAB mixtures (ranging from $82 / m3to $440 / m3) relative to the PC-CRL (cost estimated between $50 / m3to $150 / m3).

[0086] Example 4

[0087] The results of the modelling and physical property analysis were evaluated. In this evaluation, the bound carbon of the almond shell ash was not considered in the quantification of GHG emissions. The average loss on UC-2024-598-2-PCT -17-ignition of Anderson and Wonderful almond shell ash was about 23%, which, when accounting for the difference in molecular mass between C and CO2, corresponds to an estimated 0.84 kg of CO2bound in 1.0 kg of almond shell ash. Thus, even greater net GHG emissions reductions can be achieved if the bound carbon of the biomass ash is considered. However, since the most common way to obtain biomass ash is through combustion, which contributes to GHG emissions and can contribute to notable air pollution, other impacts tied to the upstream resources and processes should be addressed if the scope of assessment were to include bound carbon.

[0088] While the focus was on the use of biomass ashes as a replacement for the alkali resource in AAB mixtures, the use of other agricultural, forestry, and industrial byproducts could potentially offer a source of alkali metals for activators and / or aluminosilicates for solid precursors in AABs. Examples of such resources include calcium carbide slag, red mud, soda scraps, lithium hydroxide, cleaning solutions, waste glass, desulphurization dust, rice husk ash, sugarcane straw ash, or coffee husk ash.

[0089] It is estimated that more than 410 million metric tons of alternative alkali activators can be sourced from industrial and biomass byproducts each year. Simultaneously, other research efforts have suggested that approximately 3,500 million metric tons of aluminosilicate resources can be generated from similar resources. It should be noted that there is a small level of overlap between the alkali resources and the aluminosilicate resources that were considered. However, the scale of these resources is commensurate to the greater than 4,000 million metric tons of cement produced annually. These findings suggest that the use of alternative alkali resources and alternative aluminosilicates could offer great potential in replacing PC and thereby reduce GHG emissions. By leveraging these byproducts and adopting AAB concrete, the construction industry can achieve a more environmentally friendly and cost-effective building environment.

[0090] Additionally, these materials suggest that localized resources, which could reduce costs and further minimize emissions associated with transportation, may be available to supply the demand for activators. For example, this work focused on the use of almond shell ash due to the UC-2024-598-2-PCT -18-abundance of almond shells in California. Notably, this is not a substantial resource worldwide. However, the findings show this locally available resource can contribute to substantial emissions reductions within a geographical location. The combination of locally sourced alkali resources and aluminosilicate resources may provide regionally available mechanisms to decarbonize cement and concrete production without new production technologies, supporting a transition to a decarbonized economy that does not require substantial capital investment.

[0091] AABs can reduce GHG emissions and several key air pollutants when used as a replacement for reagent-grade chemicals with substitution levels of 10%, 50% and 100% of reagent-grade chemicals. Key considerations for mechanical properties, resource supply, and economic analysis were also investigated in California. Some key findings are as follows:

[0092] 1) Almond shell ash AAB mortars consistently showed lower GHG, NOX, SOX, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, and CO emissions compared to the baseline chemical AAB mortars despite additional curing energy and transport distances. (FIG.4A to FIG.4F). However, AAB mortars had higher NOXand VOC emissions than PC mortar due to long transport distances of GGBFS and chemical reagents as well as from notable emissions from chemical reagents manufacturing, highlighting the importance of local resource availability and material allocation for effective GHG reduction in AAB concrete.

[0093] 2) The GHG emissions results show that significant reductions in GHG emissions can be achieved by adopting AAB mixtures with almond shell ash. It should be noted that the curing process and material transportation significantly affect GHG emissions and must be considered when accounting for life cycle GHG emissions.

[0094] 3) Despite the lower strengths of the AAB mortars compared to the PC mortar, the AAB mortars with 50% and 100% replacement levels showed better ratios of GHG emissions to compressive strength than the PC mortar due to a significant reduction in GHG emissions of the AAB mortars.

[0095] 4) Scaling emissions reduction based on resource availability; findings suggest up to 0.47 million metric tons of GHG emissions could be avoided UC-2024-598-2-PCT -19-annually by using almond shell ash AAB concrete in California.

[0096] 5) High transportation costs of GGBFS, the chemical KOH, K2CO3, and superplasticizer significantly increase the total costs of AAB concrete, again highlighting the need for utilizing local resources for market feasibility.

[0097] Example 5

[0098] To indicate the suitability of almond ash obtained from a currently operational biomass plant for use as an activator, a bottom ash sample from a 3 MW power plant in Robinvale, Victoria, Australia was tested.

[0099] Similar to previous tests conducted using laboratory prepared almond shell ashes, a dosage based on replacing K2O content of reagent with ash was attempted. The mix designs are shown in Table 5. Testing was done at a 100% replacement and was conducted at two K2O molalities, namely 2m and 3m. The 2m mix formulation was tested both in ground and unground form, at 40°C for 7 days and 28 days. The almond byproduct ash was ground to below 300-micron particle size for 1 minute. While the mix at higher activator dosage (3m) was tested at 2 curing temperatures (i.e., at 40°C and ambient (23°C)) for 3, 7, and 28 days.

[0100] Comparisons of mortar mixes cast (Table 5) with the hydroxide control system (KH-CRL) for compressive strength were conducted and the results are plotted in FIG.6. For samples cured at 40°C, the early age strengths were higher for both higher activator dosage and ground biomass ash. At 28 days, the strength for two dosages was similar. The ground almond ash formulation, however, has a higher strength at 28 days of all the systems tested.

[0101] The use of the non-processed ash in unground form at 2m and 3m K2O produced strengths which are intermediate between hydroxide activated and carbonate activated systems shown earlier. When this biomass bottom ash was ground using a coffee grinder to lower than 300-micron size, strengths only between 8% to12% lower than carbonate activated systems were obtained. Even with curing at ambient temperature at a 3m K2O dosage, the compressive strengths are comparable with the hydroxide activated system at 40°C.

[0102] For the 3m mix formulation, even in ambient curing conditions, the as- received unground ash attains an average compressive strength higher than UC-2024-598-2-PCT -20-3000 psi. These results offer a clear indication that almond biomass ash produced in Mt scale, can behave as an activator and an increase in strength can be obtained if the almond biomass ash is ground before use.

[0103] From the description herein, it will be appreciated that the present disclosure encompasses multiple implementations of the technology which include, but are not limited to, the following:

[0104] A mortar composition, the composition comprising: (a) ground furnace slag; (b) a potassium hydroxide (KOH) or potassium carbonate (K2CO3) alkali activator; (c) a fine aggregate; (d) at least one biomass ash; and (e) water.

[0105] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the ground furnace slag is a material selected from the group of granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and ground melting furnace slag (GMFS).

[0106] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the one or more biomass ash is an ash selected from the group of coffee husk ash (CHA), rice husk ash (RHA), and sugar cane straw ash (SCSA).

[0107] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the biomass ash is an ash material selected from the group of almond shell ash, almond hull ash and a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash.

[0108] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the ash has a particle size of 300 microns or less.

[0109] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, further comprising at least one supplementary cementitious material.

[0110] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the supplementary cementitious material is a material selected from the group of ground calcium carbide slag (GCCS), red mud (RM), and desulphurization dust (DeS-dust).

[0111] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the supplementary cementitious material is a material selected from the group of soda scraps (SDS), Lithium hydroxide (LiOH), cleaning solutions (CS), and waste glass (WG).

[0112] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, further comprising lime. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -21-

[0113] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein a ratio of alkali activator to ash is in the range of 10: 1 to 1:1.

[0114] A composition, the composition comprising (a) ground furnace slag; (b) fine aggregate; (c) one or more biomass ashes; (d) a plasticizer; and (e) water.

[0115] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the ground furnace slag is a material selected from the group of granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and ground melting furnace slag (GMFS).

[0116] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the one or more biomass ash is an ash selected from the group of coffee husk ash (CHA), rice husk ash (RHA), and sugar cane straw ash (SCSA).

[0117] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the biomass ash is an ash material selected from the group of almond shell ash, almond hull ash and a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash.

[0118] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the almond shell ash has between approximately 10% to approximately 32% soluble K2O.

[0119] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the ash has a particle size of 300 microns or less.

[0120] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the plasticizer is a material selected from the group of sulfonated naphthalene and melamine, formaldehyde condensates, acetone formaldehyde condensate, PMS (polymelamine sulfonate), and PNS (polynaphthalene sulfonate).

[0121] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, further comprising at least one supplementary cementitious material selected from the group of ground calcium carbide slag (GCCS), red mud (RM), soda scraps (SDS), Lithium hydroxide (LiOH), cleaning solutions (CS), waste glass (WG), and desulphurization dust (DeS-dust).

[0122] The composition of any preceding or following implementation, wherein the composition comprises: (a) ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with a weight percent in the range of about 20 to 23 wt%; (b) fine aggregate UC-2024-598-2-PCT -22-with a weight percent in the range of about 55 to 57 wt%;(c) almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash with a weight percent in the range of about 10 to12 wt%; (d) a plasticizer with a weight percent in the range of about 1 to 2 wt%; and (e) water with a weight percent in the range of about 10 to 12 wt%.

[0123] A composition with reduced greenhouse gas emissions produced per cubic meter of mortar, the composition comprising: (a) ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS); (b) fine aggregate; (c) almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash; (d) at least one supplementary cementitious material; (e) a plasticizer; and (f) water.

[0124] As used herein, the term "implementation" is intended to include, without limitation, embodiments, examples, or other forms of practicing the technology described herein.

[0125] As used herein, the singular terms "a," "an," and "the" may include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Reference to an object in the singular is not intended to mean "one and only one" unless explicitly so stated, but rather "one or more."

[0126] Phrasing constructs, such as “A, B and / or C,” within the present disclosure describe where either A, B, or C can be present, or any combination of items A, B and C. Phrasing constructs indicating, such as “at least one of” followed by listing a group of elements, indicates that at least one of these groups of elements is present, which includes any possible combination of the listed elements as applicable.

[0127] References in this disclosure referring to “an embodiment,” “at least one embodiment” or similar embodiment wording indicates that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with a described embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present disclosure. Thus, these various embodiment phrases are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment, or to a specific embodiment which differs from all the other embodiments being described. The embodiment phrasing should be construed to mean that the particular features, structures, or characteristics of a given embodiment may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments of the disclosed apparatus, system, or method. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -23-

[0128] As used herein, the term "set" refers to a collection of one or more objects. Thus, for example, a set of objects can include a single object or multiple objects.

[0129] Relational terms such as first and second, top and bottom, upper and lower, left and right, and the like, may be used solely to distinguish one entity or action from another entity or action without necessarily requiring or implying any actual such relationship or order between such entities or actions.

[0130] The terms "comprises," "comprising," "has", "having," "includes", "including," "contains", "containing" or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, apparatus, or system, that comprises, has, includes, or contains a list of elements does not include only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, apparatus, or system. An element proceeded by "comprises ... a", "has ... a", "includes ... a", "contains ... a" does not, without more constraints, preclude the existence of additional identical elements in the process, method, article, apparatus, or system, that comprises, has, includes, contains the element.

[0131] As used herein, the terms "approximately", "approximate,” “substantially", "substantial", "essentially", and "about", or any other version thereof, are used to describe and account for small variations. When used in conjunction with an event or circumstance, the terms can refer to instances in which the event or circumstance occurs precisely as well as instances in which the event or circumstance occurs to a close approximation. When used in conjunction with a numerical value, the terms can refer to a range of variation of less than or equal to ± 10% of that numerical value, such as less than or equal to ±5%, less than or equal to ±4%, less than or equal to ±3%, less than or equal to ±2%, less than or equal to ±1 %, less than or equal to ±0.5%, less than or equal to ±0.1 %, or less than or equal to ±0.05%. For example, "substantially" aligned can refer to a range of angular variation of less than or equal to ±10°, such as less than or equal to ±5°, less than or equal to ±4°, less than or equal to ±3°, less than or equal to ±2°, less than or equal to ±1°, less than or equal to ±0.5°, less than or equal to ±0.1°, or less UC-2024-598-2-PCT -24-than or equal to ±0.05°.

[0132] Additionally, amounts, ratios, and other numerical values may sometimes be presented herein in a range format. It is to be understood that such range format is used for convenience and brevity and should be understood flexibly to include numerical values explicitly specified as limits of a range, but also to include all individual numerical values or sub-ranges encompassed within that range as if each numerical value and sub-range is explicitly specified. For example, a ratio in the range of about 1 to about 200 should be understood to include the explicitly recited limits of about 1 and about 200, but also to include individual ratios such as about 2, about 3, and about 4, and sub-ranges such as about 10 to about 50, about 20 to about 100, and so forth.

[0133] The term "coupled" as used herein is defined as connected, although not necessarily directly and not necessarily mechanically. A device or structure that is "configured" in a certain way is configured in at least that way but may also be configured in ways that are not listed.

[0134] Benefits, advantages, solutions to problems, and any element(s) that may cause any benefit, advantage, or solution to occur or become more pronounced are not to be construed as a critical, required, or essential feature or element of the technology described herein or any or all the claims.

[0135] In addition, in the foregoing disclosure various features may be grouped together in various embodiments for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed embodiments require more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Inventive subject matter can lie in less than all features of a single disclosed embodiment.

[0136] The abstract of the disclosure is provided to allow the reader to quickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure. It is submitted with the understanding that it will not be used to interpret or limit the scope or meaning of the claims.

[0137] It will be appreciated that the practice of some jurisdictions may require deletion of one or more portions of the disclosure after the application is filed. Accordingly, the reader should consult the application as filed for the original UC-2024-598-2-PCT -25-content of the disclosure. Any deletion of content of the disclosure should not be construed as a disclaimer, forfeiture, or dedication to the public of any subject matter of the application as originally filed.

[0138] All text in a drawing figure is hereby incorporated into the disclosure and is to be treated as part of the written description of the drawing figure.

[0139] The following claims are hereby incorporated into the disclosure, with each claim standing on its own as a separately claimed subject matter.

[0140] Although the description herein contains many details, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the disclosure, but as merely providing illustrations of some of the presently preferred embodiments. Therefore, it will be appreciated that the scope of the disclosure fully encompasses other embodiments which may become obvious to those skilled in the art.

[0141] All structural and functional equivalents to the elements of the disclosed embodiments that are known to those of ordinary skill in the art are expressly incorporated herein by reference and are intended to be encompassed by the present claims. Furthermore, no element, component, or method step in the present disclosure is intended to be dedicated to the public regardless of whether the element, component, or method step is explicitly recited in the claims. No claim element herein is to be construed as a "means plus function" element unless the element is expressly recited using the phrase "means for". No claim element herein is to be construed as a "step plus function" element unless the element is expressly recited using the phrase "step for". UC-2024-598-2-PCT -26-UC-2024-598-2-PCT -27-UC-2024-598-2-PCT -28-Table 3 K2CO3Activated Mixtures: Mass of Constituents in kg / m3UC-2024-598-2-PCT -29-Table 4 Materials and Process CostsUC-2024-598-2-PCT -30-Table 5 Mortar Mix Design for Mixes using Robinvale Ash as ActivatorUC-2024-598-2-PCT -31-

Claims

CLAIMS What is claimed:

1. A mortar composition, the composition comprising: (a) ground furnace slag; (b) a potassium hydroxide (KOH) or potassium carbonate (K2CO3) alkali activator; (c) a fine aggregate; (d) at least one biomass ash; and (e) water.

2. The mortar composition of claim 1, wherein said ground furnace slag is a material selected from the group of granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and ground melting furnace slag (GMFS).

3. The mortar composition of claim 1, wherein said one or more biomass ash is an ash selected from the group of coffee husk ash (CHA), rice husk ash (RHA), and sugar cane straw ash (SCSA).

4. The mortar composition of claim 1, wherein said biomass ash is an ash material selected from the group of almond shell ash, almond hull ash and a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash.

5. The mortar composition of claim 1, wherein said ash has a particle size of 300 microns or less.

6. The mortar composition of claim 1, further comprising at least one supplementary cementitious material.

7. The mortar composition of claim 6, wherein said supplementary cementitious material is a material selected from the group of ground calcium carbide slag (GCCS), red mud (RM), and desulphurization dust (DeS-dust). UC-2024-598-2-PCT -32-8. The mortar composition of claim 6, wherein said supplementary cementitious material is a material selected from the group of soda scraps (SDS), Lithium hydroxide (LiOH), cleaning solutions (CS), and waste glass (WG).

9. The mortar composition of claim 1, further comprising lime.

10. The mortar composition of claim 1, wherein a ratio of alkali activator to ash is in the range of 10: 1 to 1:

1.

11. A mortar composition, the composition comprising: (a) ground furnace slag; (b) fine aggregate; (c) one or more biomass ashes; (d) a plasticizer; and (e) water.

12. The mortar composition of claim 11, wherein said ground furnace slag is a material selected from the group of granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and ground melting furnace slag (GMFS).

13. The mortar composition of claim 11, wherein said one or more biomass ash is an ash selected from the group of coffee husk ash (CHA), rice husk ash (RHA), and sugar cane straw ash (SCSA).

14. The mortar composition of claim 11, wherein said biomass ash is an ash material selected from the group of almond shell ash, almond hull ash and a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash.

15. The composition of claim 14, wherein the almond shell ash has between approximately 10% to approximately 32% soluble K2O.

16. The mortar composition of claim 11, wherein said ash has a particle size of 300 microns or less. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -33-17. The mortar composition of claim 11, wherein said plasticizer is a material selected from the group of sulfonated naphthalene and melamine, formaldehyde condensates, acetone formaldehyde condensate, PMS (polymelamine sulfonate), and PNS (polynaphthalene sulfonate).

18. The mortar composition of claim 1, further comprising at least one supplementary cementitious material selected from the group of ground calcium carbide slag (GCCS), red mud (RM), soda scraps (SDS), Lithium hydroxide (LiOH), cleaning solutions (CS), waste glass (WG), and desulphurization dust (DeS-dust).

19. The composition of claim 11, wherein said composition comprises: (a) ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with a weight percent in the range of about 20 to 23 wt%; (b) fine aggregate with a weight percent in the range of about 55 to 57 wt%; (c) almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash with a weight percent in the range of about 10 to12 wt%; (d) a plasticizer with a weight percent in the range of about 1 to 2 wt%; and (e) water with a weight percent in the range of about 10 to 12 wt%.

20. A mortar composition with reduced greenhouse gas emissions produced per cubic meter of mortar, the composition comprising: (a) ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS); (b) fine aggregate; (c) almond shell ash or almond hull ash or a combination of almond shell ash and almond hull ash; (d) at least one supplementary cementitious material; (e) a plasticizer; and (f) water. UC-2024-598-2-PCT -34-

Images