Durability Assessment of Sisal Fiber Reinforced-Mortar with Waste Glass Powder as A Partial Replacement for Cement in an Aggressive Environment

Durability Assessment of Sisal Fiber Reinforced-Mortar with Waste Glass Powder as A Partial Replacement for Cement in an Aggressive Environment | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Durability Assessment of Sisal Fiber Reinforced-Mortar with Waste Glass Powder as A Partial Replacement for Cement in an Aggressive Environment Mutiu Adelodun Akinpelu, Abdulbaaqi Abiodun Olayiwola, Marafa Ash-Shu’ara Salman, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 20 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Mortar plays a crucial role in construction, serving as a binder in masonry, plastering, and repairs. However, durability remains a key challenge, especially under harsh environmental conditions. The potential of incorporating glass waste powder (GWP) and fibers in mortar is under explored. This study addresses that gap by evaluating how GWP (0–20%) and sisal fiber (1%) affect the performance of fiber-reinforced Mortar (FR-M). SEM and XRD analyses, following ASTM E1508 and C1365, were used to study microstructure and mineral phases. Mechanical testing (ASTM C109, C348) assessed compressive and flexural strengths at multiple curing ages, while sulfate resistance was evaluated using 5% MgSO₄ solution per ASTM C1012. Findings show optimal performance at 7.5% GWP with 18 MPa compressive and 6.7 MPa flexural strength. While higher GWP levels reduced strength, sisal fiber consistently enhanced mechanical properties. A mix with 15% GWP + 0.5% fiber showed excellent sulfate resistance—only 13.8% flexural and 14.8% compressive loss, with 0.096 mm (0.06%) expansion after 90 days—demonstrating superior durability and sustainability. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 1. Introduction Mortar is a fundamental construction material used as a binding agent in masonry, plastering, and repair applications. It is composed of cementitious materials (such as cement or lime), fine aggregates (typically sand), and water, mixed to form a cohesive paste (Caroselli et al., 2021 ). Unlike concrete, mortar lacks coarse aggregates, resulting in a smoother, more workable consistency that allows it to fill gaps between bricks, stones, or blocks, ensuring structural integrity and load distribution. Mortar serves multiple functions, including bonding masonry units, sealing joints against weather penetration, and providing a finished surface for plastering. Its properties—such as workability, strength, and durability—are influenced by the mix proportions, type of binder, and curing conditions. Traditional mortar types include cement mortar (high strength, rigid), lime mortar (flexible, breathable), and gypsum mortar (fast-setting, interior use) (Bregnbak & Avnstorp, 2019 ). In recent years, the glass industry has emerged as a significant contributor to both economic growth and sustainability efforts. Valued at approximately 31 billion dollars in the United States and generating around 130 billion dollars globally in 2019, the industry is expected to see continued growth. By 2025, the U.S. flat glass sector alone is projected to reach 44 billion dollars, and the global industry is anticipated to exceed 180 billion dollars by 2027. The glass industry is known for its high energy consumption (Hassani et al., 2023 ). With energy costs being a major expense, many companies are striving to improve energy efficiency. Melting raw materials, which must reach temperatures of around 1500–1600 degrees Celsius, primarily relies on fossil fuels, accounting for 85% of the energy used in furnaces. Electricity supplies the remaining 15%, powering various parts of the production process. The melting stage itself requires about 3 MJ/kg of energy (Hubert, 2019 ; Karellas et al., 2018 ). Glass's pozzolanic and filler properties make it a viable alternative to cement in recycling processes, potentially eliminating the need for remelting and packaging. Each year, 40 to 50 billion tons of sand and gravel are extracted globally, with a large portion used for concrete production. Like the glass industry, the cement industry is a significant greenhouse gas emitter, contributing about 3 billion tons of CO 2 (7% of global emissions) in 2018. Replacing cement with glass powder could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12% and energy consumption by 15% (Ali et al., 2015 ; Dinh et al., 2022 ; Hossain et al., 2017 ). To achieve sustainability goals, the principles of reducing, reusing, and recycling are crucial. Managing demand and minimizing waste production through improved material quality is the first step. Reusing glass is prioritized over recycling by the EU, as it is more sustainable by avoiding the additional remelting step (Blomsma et al., 2019 ). Many forms of organic and inorganic fibers are recommended for use. Natural fibers such as coir, sisal, sugarcane, banana, bamboo, jute, wood, vegetables, bagasse, rice husk, flax, and kenaf are primarily used in concrete. These fibers contribute to sustainable development (Thakare et al., 2021). Historically, fibers like straw and horsehair have been used in bricks and plaster to enhance strength and durability. Reinforced concrete slabs using coir have shown promising results after extensive testing. Natural fibers exhibit high strength but have a low modulus of elasticity. This variability affects the properties of concrete significantly. Under stress and bending pressures, these concrete formulations achieve final strengths between 12 and 25 MPa. Coconut fibers, for instance, are stronger than synthetic fibers in concrete (Shah et al., 2022). Sisal fibers, when added to concrete, tend to reduce its strength compared to samples without fibers. The length of fibers, such as sisal and banana, influences the load transfer mechanism in the concrete matrix (Dhand et al., 2015). The performance of cement composites is enhanced by long sisal fibers arranged in layers within a steel mold. Vegetable fibers, like those from eucalyptus, improve mechanical performance compared to pine-based fibers after 200 aging cycles. The physical properties of concrete, including aggregate thin module and sand gravity, are crucial in these composites (Li et al., 2022). Under natural dry conditions, admixtures at 0.20% concentration are used in concrete mixtures. Different percentages of fibers like hemp and coir contribute to varying compressive strengths. For example, the substitution of cement with various fibers results in improved characteristics, although the strength might reduce slightly with the addition of fly ash. The specific weight of fibers like sisal is carefully measured for optimal performance (Rahuman & Yeshika, 2015). Natural fibers in concrete combinations exhibit varied tensile strengths under different conditions, such as exposure to water, sodium, and other immersions. The impact of saturated lime significantly reduces the tensile strength of fibers like sisal, jute, and hibiscus. After prolonged wet and dry cycles, fibers like coir retain a portion of their initial strength (Rahuman & Yeshika, 2015). Adding sugarcane bagasse marginally increases flexural strength by 3%. Raw jute, when applied to concrete with 1% cement weight, enhances flexural strength. Coconut fiber reinforcement also improves the flexural properties of epoxy polymers and concrete, with reinforced concrete glass and carbon fiber showing the best results (Hassani Niaki, 2023). Natural fibers like polypropylene and kenaf reduce water absorption due to their hydrophobic nature. Coir in concrete shows increased water absorption as its content increases (More & Subramanian, 2022). The combination of synthetic and natural fibers provides lightweight and durable concrete mixtures. Past research in the past has worked with sustainable these waste materials, Liu, Wei, Zou, Zhou, and Jian ( 2020 ) replaced fine aggregates in ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) with recycled liquid crystal display (CRT) glass in amounts ranging from 25–100% by volume. Using a constant water–cement ratio and different superplasticizer levels, they observed increased flowability by 11 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm, and 12 mm for 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% WG additions, respectively, compared to the control mix. The improved workability resulting from WG inclusion highlights its potential as a viable recycled material (Zhang et al., 2022 ). This suggests that glass can be effectively used in the production of high-performance concrete (HPC), especially where high flowability is essential. Moreover, WG can enhance workability without relying heavily on chemical admixtures like high-range water reducers (HRWR) or superplasticizers (Almeshal et al., 2022 ). Arabi, Meftah, Amara, Kebaïli, and Berredjem ( 2019 ) partially replaced coarse aggregate in self-compacting concrete (SCC) with recycled windshield glass in proportions ranging from 25–100% by volume. They employed different water–cement ratios (between 0.60 and 0.69) along with varying doses of superplasticizers. Their results indicated a decline in slump flow by 3%, 8%, 9%, and 11% when 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of WG were incorporated, respectively. Meraz et al. ( 2023 ) investigated the effect of recycled waste glass (WG) on the flowability, strength, durability properties, and temperature resistance of UHPGC. The mixtures were prepared by replacing natural sand with varying ratios of WG. The samples were submerged in 2% H 2 SO 4 and 5% MgSO 4 solutions and subjected to high temperatures for 1.5 hours. The results showed that the flowability increased with WG content, while the compressive strength decreased for the substituted 2% natural sand. In this study by Ahmad et al. ( 2023 ), sand was replaced with glass weights of different sizes, using white and green glass. The results showed that increasing the replacement ratio up to 10% increased flowability, while decreasing it with continuous increase. Understanding the composition and properties of mortar is crucial for the construction industry. A study by Güneyisi et al. ( 2019 ) tested plain and glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete (SCC) specimens for their fresh and reological properties. Results showed that SCC with 2% and 4% NS and maximum GF achieved a lower workability enhancement rate. Mastali et al. ( 2018 ) investigated the use of recycled glass fibres in self-compacting concrete (SCC). Different fibre volume fractions and lengths were used to assess the fresh and hardened properties of the fibre-reinforced SCCs. The fresh properties were evaluated in terms of flowability and viscosity, while the hardened properties were characterized in terms of ultrasonic pulse velocity, compressive strength, flexural strength, and impact resistance. The specimens were tested experimentally to characterize their mechanical properties and impact resistance. The results showed that increasing the volume fraction and length of the recycled glass fibres improved fresh properties. Du and Tan ( 2017 ) and Siade et al. (2018) observed that incorporating up to 45% GP, with or without superplasticizer (SP), reduced chloride ion penetration. However, increasing GP content to 60% resulted in lower chloride ion content in samples with SP, while samples without SP showed higher penetration. As concrete ages, its pore structure improves, reducing chloride penetration, although higher penetration might be observed in the early stages of its life. Siad et al. ( 2018 ) also studied the effects of combining glass powder (GP) with furnace slag (SG), limestone powder (LP), and fly ash (FA) on sulfate attack resistance. They discovered that increasing the amount of GP enhanced resistance to 5% H 2 SO 4 after 12 weeks, with the best results observed in mixes containing 20% GP, 20% LP, and 45% GP alone. All three additives positively influenced sulfate resistance, with higher GP percentages having a more significant effect. However, this improvement came with a considerable reduction in compressive strength, ranging from 30–54%, which is quite substantial. The construction sector continues to grapple with durability challenges in concrete structures exposed to harsh environmental conditions; despite the known advantages of fiber reinforcement, the potential benefits of incorporating recycled materials like glass waste powder (GWP) in mortar systems remain underexplored. This research gap presents a critical opportunity to investigate how such modifications can enhance the mechanical properties and durability performance of fiber-reinforced mortar. Accordingly, this study examines the synergistic effects of GWP and fiber reinforcement in mortar systems, with the overarching goal of developing more sustainable and durable mortar formulations suitable for demanding construction applications. The aim of this study is to assess the durability properties of fiber-reinforced mortar incorporating waste glass powder as a supplementary cementitious material. The objectives of this project are to evaluate the chemical composition and microstructural properties of waste glass powder (WGP), determine the strength properties of the fiber-reinforced mortar (FRM) blended with WGP when exposed to magnesium sulfate at varying curing periods, and assess the impact of magnesium sulfate exposure on the chemical composition and microstructural properties of the mortar samples. 2. Materials and Methodology 2.1 Materials This section explains the materials used, the mixing techniques, and the testing methods employed in this research project. The materials utilized include Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), fine aggregate, water, waste glass powder, sisal fibers, and magnesium sulfate. The cement used was BUA 42.5R grade OPC, sourced from Mohadis Construction Limited in Ilorin, Kwara State, and it complied with ASTM C150 (2021) specifications for structural applications. The fine aggregate, obtained from the same supplier in Ilorin, met the requirements of ASTM C33 (2016). Potable water conforming to ASTM D1193-20 was used in all mix preparations. Waste glass was collected from restaurants, bars, and shebeens in Ilorin; after thorough cleaning and manual sorting to remove non-glass materials, it was mechanically crushed, ground to fine particles using a mechanical grinder, and sieved to pass through a 90-micron sieve. This ensured a uniform particle size suitable for use as a supplementary cementitious material in mortar production, with the grinding carried out at the Civil Engineering Department Laboratory, LAUTECH, Ogbomosho. Sisal fibers were sourced in Ilorin, where they were cleaned, sun-dried, manually separated for uniformity, and trimmed into 30 mm lengths before use in the concrete mix. Finally, magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO₄·7H₂O), AR grade with a purity of ≥ 99%, was locally sourced from Irebamidele Chemical Store in Ilorin and supplied in 500 g bottles. The mix proportions in Table 1 were designed to evaluate the effects of varying waste glass powder (GP) contents as partial cement replacements and different sisal fiber volumes. The control mix used a cement:sand:water ratio of 1:2.75:0.95 without GP or fiber. GP was introduced at 7.5%, 15%, and 22.5% replacement levels, and sisal fiber was added at 0%, 0.5%, and 1.0% by volume. A total of twelve mixes were prepared, starting with the control mix (M1) containing 5.2 kg of cement, 14.3 kg of sand, and 4948 ml of water. In M2 and M3, the same base mix was used, but sisal fiber was added at 0.5% and 1.0% to assess its individual effect. For M4 to M6, 7.5% of cement was replaced with 0.39 kg GP, reducing cement to 4.81 kg, and fiber was varied across 0%, 0.5%, and 1.0%. M7 to M9 incorporated 15% GP (0.78 kg) with cement reduced to 4.42 kg, and the same fiber variations, while M10 to M12 used 22.5% GP (1.17 kg) with 4.03 kg of cement and the same range of fiber content. In all mixes, sand and water remained constant to ensure comparability. Three 50 mm cubes were cast for compressive strength, three 40 × 40 × 160 mm prisms for flexural strength, and three 50 mm cubes for durability. All specimens were cast using a mechanical vibration table, left at room temperature for 24 hours, demolded, and cured in water at 27°C until testing. Curing durations were 7, 28, 56, and 90 days. Table 1 Mix proportion S/N Mix ID Sisal Fiber Content (% by Cement) Cement (kg) GP (kg) Sand (kg) Water (ml) 1 M1 0 5.2 0 14.3 4948 2 M2 0.0104 5.2 0 14.3 4948 3 M3 0.052 5.200 0 14.3 4948 4 M4 0 4.810 0.39 14.3 4948 5 M5 0.0104 4.810 0.39 14.3 4948 6 M6 0.052 4.810 0.39 14.3 4948 7 M7 0 4.42 0.78 14.3 4948 8 M8 0.0104 4.420 0.78 14.3 4948 9 M9 0.052 4.420 0.78 14.3 4948 10 M10 0 4.03 1.17 14.3 4948 11 M11 0.0104 4.03 1.17 14.3 4948 12 M12 0.052 4.03 1.17 14.3 4948 2.2 Experimental Programme 2.2.1 Tests on Microstructural Properties X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were conducted to evaluate the chemical composition, crystalline phases, and microstructural morphology of the mortar and glass powder samples. Figure 2 presents the powdered mortar samples used in these tests. 2.2.2 X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Glass powder samples were oven-dried at 105°C for 24 hours and ground to below 75 µm. The powder was either pressed into pellets or fused into glass beads, then analyzed using an XRF spectrometer. The instrument detected emitted fluorescent X-rays to determine the elemental oxide composition, including SiO₂, Al₂O₃, CaO, and Fe₂O₃, using calibrated standards and analysis software. 2.2.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Mortar and glass powder samples were cleaned with distilled water, dried, and sectioned if necessary. Each sample was mounted on a conductive stub and coated with a thin gold layer to prevent charging. SEM imaging was conducted under high vacuum with optimized voltage and working distance. Surface morphology and fiber–matrix interaction were observed at various magnifications, and EDS was used to determine elemental composition. The analysis followed ASTM E1508 (2012) at the Integrated Research Laboratories, Ibadan. 2.2.4 X-ray Diffraction (XRD) Crushed and ground mortar samples (≤ 75 µm) were spread onto holders and analyzed using Cu-Kα radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å) at 40 kV and 30 mA, over a 2θ range of 5°–70°, with a 0.02° step size. Diffraction patterns were interpreted using HighScore or Match!® software and the ICDD database to identify phases like C–S–H, portlandite, and ettringite, as well as amorphous glass phases. All procedures adhered to ASTM C1365-18. 2.3 Mechanical Properties Test To evaluate the mechanical performance of mortar incorporating sisal fiber and waste glass powder, compressive strength, flexural strength, and magnesium sulfate resistance tests were conducted following relevant ASTM standards. 2.3.1 Compressive strength test The compressive strength test was performed to determine the load-bearing capacity of the modified mortar. Standard 50 × 50 × 50 mm cubes were prepared by thoroughly mixing the constituents, casting them into molds, and compacting the mix. The specimens were cured in water for 7, 28, 56, 90, and 120 days. After each curing period, the samples were removed, surface-dried, and tested using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) at the University of Ilorin. The load was applied gradually until failure, and the peak load was recorded in accordance with ASTM C109 (2021), as shown in Fig. 2 . 2.3.2 Flexural strength test The flexural strength test assessed the mortar’s bending resistance using prismatic specimens of size 40 × 40 × 160 mm, cured for the same durations. The test was conducted under a three-point loading configuration using a UTM, following ASTM C348 (2002). Each beam was placed on two support rollers, and a central load was applied until fracture occurred. The maximum breaking load was recorded and used to calculate flexural strength. This test provided insights into the contribution of fibers and glass powder to tensile performance and crack resistance of the mortar under flexural stress (Fig. 4 ). 2.3.3 Sulfate attack To assess resistance to sulfate attack, mortar bars were tested according to ASTM C1012/C1012M–24. After 28 days of moist curing, the bars were immersed in a freshly prepared 5% magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄·7H₂O) solution, made by dissolving 50 g of MgSO₄ in 1 L of distilled water. The solution was maintained at 23 ± 2°C, with pH controlled between 6.0 and 8.0. Each specimen was exposed at a solution-to-mortar volume ratio of 4.0 ± 0.5, typically requiring 625–800 mL per bar. Deterioration was monitored at 30, 60, and 90 days by visual inspection for cracks and scaling, followed by compressive strength testing. A control group was submerged in tap water for comparison. This test simulated long-term exposure to aggressive environments and evaluated the durability of the modified mortar (Fig. 5 ). 3. Results and Discussion This section presents and interprets the findings from all experimental tests conducted on mortar mixes incorporating sisal fiber and waste glass powder (GP), highlighting key observations, trends, and implications. 3.1 XRF Analysis The XRF results (Table 2) confirm the pozzolanic potential of the glass powder used. SiO₂ content was 52.54%, while the combined oxides (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃) amounted to 85.04%, surpassing the ASTM C618 minimum requirement of 70% for Class N pozzolans. These values indicate the material's suitability as a supplementary cementitious material. Table 2: Chemical composition of glass Powder Component Glass powder SiO₂ 52.54 Al₂O₃ 28.85 Fe₂O₃ 3.65 MnO 0.01 CaO 1.94 P₂O₅ - K₂O 0.95 TiO₂ 1.17 MgO 0.08 Na₂O 0.05 LOI 10.2 Ba 460 Ce 58 Rb 95 Zr 70 Cr 105 Cu 35 Ni 40 Pb 10 Total (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃) 85.04 3.2 XRD Analysis The XRD pattern in Figure 6 reveals sharp peaks indicating a predominantly crystalline structure with phases such as kaolinite, quartz, albite, and muscovite. The absence of a broad hump suggests minimal amorphous content, pointing to a clay-based or ceramic origin rather than soda-lime glass. XRD patterns before and after magnesium sulfate exposure (Figures 7–10) reveal both crystalline and amorphous phases. Quartz consistently dominates all mixes, while portlandite, calcite, and C–S–H phases indicate cement hydration. Post-exposure patterns show reduced portlandite intensity and formation of secondary phases such as ettringite and calcite. Amorphous humps were minimal, indicating limited gel-phase formation. M3 and M7 show signs of carbonation and secondary product formation, suggesting sulfate interaction and leaching effects. 3.2.1 XRD of M1 (control) XRD analysis of Sample M1 (Figure 7) shows sharp quartz peaks at 21°, 26.5°, 31°, 36°, and 50°, along with signals from kaolinite, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and traces of mica, smectite, and illite. A broad hump at 20°–25° indicates C–S–H gel, confirming mixed crystalline–amorphous phases and pozzolanic activity. After 30 days of sulfate exposure, Sample M1A (Figure 7b) displays defined peaks at (100), (101), (200), (220), and (311), indicating quartz, calcite, and portlandite. Reduced portlandite and absence of gypsum suggest leaching as the main degradation mode, while elevated background near 20°–30° points to amorphous silica or C–S–H breakdown 3.2.2 XRD of M2 (0.5% Fiber) In Figure 8, Sharp peaks between 5°–75° 2θ with dominant quartz (21°, 27°, 31°, 39°, 50°). Minor kaolinite, mica, and iron oxide indicate aluminosilicates. CaO (25°, 38°) and zeolite (45°, 70°) suggest hydration and pozzolanic interactions. A broad hump <15° indicates C–S–H gel formation. After Exposure: Peaks at (002), (100), (101), etc., reflect quartz, residual portlandite, and carbonate phases. (002) suggests ettringite or LDH formation. Absence of amorphous hump implies limited gel degradation, aligning with SEM-observed microcracks but no gel corrosion. 3.2.3 XRD of M3 (1% Fiber) Figure 9 show XRD pattern of sample M3. Before exposure, the crystalline profile (20°–70° 2θ) was quartz-dominated, with kaolinite, zeolite, and traces of CaO, Fe₂O₃, and calcite present; fiber addition enhanced matrix uniformity with minimal phase disruption. After exposure, clear diffraction peaks at (002), (100), (200), and others indicated the presence of quartz, portlandite, and calcite, with the (002) reflection suggesting sulfate-induced secondary phases. The absence of a broad hump implied minimal C–S–H breakdown, while minor peak shifts pointed to possible ion exchange or leaching. 3.2.4 XRD of M4 (7.5% GP) Figure 10 shows XRD pattern of M4. Before exposure, the XRD pattern was dominated by quartz peaks at 26.6°, 36.5°, and 50°, accompanied by kaolinite, mica, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and zeolite, indicating active pozzolanic behavior. After exposure, intensified crystalline peaks at (100), (200), and (300) suggested enhanced sulfate reactions, while a slight baseline elevation near 10° indicated minor amorphous phases originating from ground pozzolan (GP). The reduced portlandite content reflected increased pozzolanic consumption. 3.2.5 XRD of M7 (15% GP + Fiber) Figure 11 shows XRD pattern of M7. Before exposure, the matrix was quartz-dominant with kaolinite, mica, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and zeolite, while a broader amorphous region reflected active pozzolanic reactions. After exposure, the appearance of a new (311) peak suggested the formation of complex sulfate-induced mineral phases, with persistent quartz and calcite peaks indicating structural retention. The reduced intensities of (220) and (300) peaks reflected balanced reactivity, and the slightly elevated background between 20°–30° hinted at amorphous silica presence or possible fiber degradation. 3.3 SEM Analysis Waste Glass Powder (Figure 12): The powder exhibits layered, porous structures with high surface area, ideal for pozzolanic reactivity. SEM images before exposure show relatively dense matrices, with fiber–matrix interaction improving in M2 and M3. After sulfate exposure, samples exhibited microcracking, pitting, and loss of matrix cohesion. M2 and M6 (containing fibers) showed moderate resistance due to crack-bridging, while M4 and M10 revealed deeper structural deterioration due to high GP content. M7 (high GP + fiber) showed the most severe porosity and internal stress. 3.3.1 SEM Image of M1 (0% GP, No Fiber) Before exposure, SEM imaging at 9,000× magnification revealed that M1 contained non-uniform particles ranging from sharp-edged to smooth, with surface irregularities and microvoids characteristic of brittle cement-based composites. After exposure, the 4,000× image showed extensive degradation marked by increased porosity, surface etching, and microcracks resulting from sulfate attack. In the absence of ground pozzolan (GP) or fibers, the matrix exhibited uniform damage, poor cohesion, and no apparent resistance to sulfate ingress, consistent with literature findings that control mortars are more susceptible to sulfate-induced deterioration. 3.3.2 SEM Image of M2 (0.5% Fiber) Before exposure, SEM imaging at 6,000× magnification showed M2 as a hydrated cement matrix embedded with sisal fibers—some well-bonded, others partially detached—suggesting early-stage matrix–fiber interaction. After exposure, the 5,000× image revealed fine microcracks, pitting, and interfacial degradation, including fiber swelling and debonding due to sulfate hydrolysis. While the limited fiber dosage provided minor crack-bridging effects, the absence of ground pozzolan (GP) compromised sulfate resistance, leading to degradation of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) and reduced overall durability. 3.3.3 SEM Image of M3 (1% Fiber) Before exposure, SEM imaging at 5,000× magnification revealed that M3 had a porous, loosely packed matrix with voids and micro-fissures, where fiber presence appeared to limit matrix densification. After exposure, sulfate attack led to microcracks, surface erosion, and visible fiber degradation. While the fibers provided slight delay in crack propagation, the absence of pozzolanic additives left the matrix highly vulnerable to sulfate-induced damage. 3.3.4 SEM Image of M4 (7.5% GP) Before exposure, M4 exhibited smooth, spherical glass particles embedded within a rough, compact matrix, featuring distinct interfaces that suggested potential for long-term pozzolanic reactivity. After exposure, SEM imaging at 6,000× revealed deeper surface cavities, merged microcracks, and signs of delamination, indicating more severe damage than observed in M3A. While the presence of ground pozzolan (GP) enhanced chemical resistance by reducing Ca(OH)₂ content, the absence of fibers limited mechanical integrity, making the matrix more susceptible to sulfate-induced deterioration. 3.3.5 SEM Image of M7 (15% GP + Fiber) Before exposure, M7 exhibited well-dispersed additives with clearly defined interfacial zones and a compact matrix morphology influenced by the high ground pozzolan (GP) content, indicating strong load transfer and active pozzolanic reactions. After sulfate exposure, the microstructure showed increased porosity, microcracking, and particle breakdown, reflecting sulfate-induced stress and matrix degradation, although the pozzolanic contributions appeared to mitigate the rate of deterioration. 3.4 Compressive Strength Compressive strength (Figure 18) improved with fiber addition in M2 and M3, reaching 19.4 MPa and 20.0 MPa respectively at 120 days, outperforming the control (17.5 MPa). Moderate GP levels (7.5–15%) with fibers yielded good strength retention. However, excessive GP (22.5%) reduced performance (like M11: 12.4 MPa), indicating that high replacement levels dilute cementitious content and hinder hydration. 3.5 Flexural Strength Flexural strength (Figure 19) followed similar trends as compressive strength. M3 achieved the highest strength (8.0 MPa), while M12 showed the lowest (5.7 MPa), a 14.93% reduction from control. Fiber addition at 0–1% significantly improved strength in mixes without GP. Moderate GP (7.5–15%) maintained flexural performance, but 22.5% GP replacement consistently reduced it. 3.6 Magnesium Sulfate Attack 3.6.1 Compressive Strength After Exposure Compressive strength declined after sulfate exposure across all mixes (Figure 20). The least degradation occurred in M6 (7.5% GP + 1% fiber, 14.16% loss) and M8 (15% GP + 0.5% fiber, 14.81% loss), indicating optimal synergy at these dosages. The highest deterioration occurred in M11 (22.5% GP + 0.5% fiber, 34.29% loss), revealing poor sulfate resistance at excessive GP content. 3.6.2 Flexural Strength After Exposure Figure 21 shows that all mixes experienced flexural strength loss post-exposure. M5 (7.5% GP + 0.5% fiber) had the lowest reduction (6.90%), while M10 (22.5% GP, no fiber) had the highest (18.52%). Fiber alone did not significantly improve resistance in high-GP mixes. Excessive fiber at low GP levels (M6) led to higher degradation (11.32%), likely due to poor fiber-matrix compatibility under chemical stress. 3.7 Length Change Length change data (Figure 22) revealed progressive expansion over time, consistent with sulfate-induced ettringite and gypsum formation. Control mixes (M1–M3) showed minimal expansion, while GP mixes—especially M10 (22.5% GP, 0.112 mm)—expanded the most. Fiber addition consistently reduced deformation (e.g., M12: 0.088 mm), confirming their role in crack resistance and dimensional stability. 4. Conclusions The following are conclusions of study: 1. WGP showed high pozzolanic potential with a combined oxide content (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃) of 85.04%, exceeding ASTM C618 minimum. SEM revealed rough, porous particles with high surface area, suitable for C–S–H formation. However, XRD indicated the presence of crystalline phases like quartz and kaolinite, suggesting partial amorphousness or mixed-source origin. 2. Magnesium sulfate exposure reduced strength across all mixes; however, compressive and flexural strengths were best retained in M6 (7.5% GP + 1% fiber) with only 14.16% compressive strength loss, and M5 (7.5% GP + 0.5% fiber) with just 6.90% flexural strength loss. While fiber enhanced crack resistance and toughness, excessive GP replacement at 22.5% led to significant strength loss and expansion regardless of fiber inclusion. 3. XRD patterns after exposure revealed leaching of portlandite, formation of calcite, and reduced amorphous C-S-H gel. SEM confirmed microcracking, porosity, and sulfate-induced degradation, especially at higher GP levels. Expansion tests showed greater deformation with increased GP, while fiber inclusion mitigated damage. A 7.5% GP replacement with 0.5–1% fiber is considered optimal, as it balances good workability (slump ~ 52 mm), improved durability and strength retention after sulfate exposure, acceptable microstructural stability as confirmed by SEM and XRD, and controlled expansion with minimal internal damage. Recommendations Based on the findings, it is recommended that waste glass powder (WGP) be used at a moderate replacement level of 7.5%, as it offers an effective balance between strength, durability, and workability. This dosage enhances the pozzolanic activity without significantly diluting cement hydration, as shown by the stable performance in both mechanical strength and sulfate resistance. To further improve the structural integrity and mitigate sulfate-induced deterioration, the incorporation of 0.5–1% natural fiber, particularly sisal fiber, is advisable, as it enhances crack-bridging and reduces expansion. However, excessive fiber content or WGP levels above 15% are not recommended, as they tend to reduce workability, compromise microstructural uniformity, and accelerate degradation under aggressive chemical environments. Proper mix design adjustments, such as the use of water-reducing admixtures, may be necessary to counterbalance the increased water demand associated with WGP’s porous and irregular structure. Overall, optimizing both the pozzolanic and reinforcing components is crucial to producing a durable, sustainable, and chemically resistant mortar composite. Declarations Funding Declaration: No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. Consent to Publish Declaration: not applicable. Consent to Participate Declaration: not applicable. Ethics Declaration: not applicable. Clinical Trial Registration: Not applicable (This study is not a clinical trial). Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the conception, design, material sourcing, experimental procedures, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version. Competing Interest Declaration: The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with this research. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, Dr. Abdulbaaqi Abiodun Olayiwola, upon reasonable request. All relevant data supporting the findings are included within the manuscript. References Ahmad, S. A., Rafiq, S. K., & Faraj, R. H. (2023). Evaluating the effect of waste glass granules on the fresh, mechanical properties and shear bond strength of sustainable cement mortar. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy , 25 (6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02485-4 Ali, N., Abbas, J., Anwer, M., Khurram Khan Alwi, S., Naeem Anjum, M., Author, C., & Jaffar, A. (2015). The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced by Cement Production and Its Impact on Environment: A Review of Global Cement Processing. Glorious Sun School of Business and Management , 2 (2). Almeshal, I., Al-Tayeb, M. M., Qaidi, S. M. A., Abu Bakar, B. H., & Tayeh, B. A. (2022). Mechanical properties of eco-friendly cements-based glass powder in aggressive medium. Materials Today: Proceedings , 58 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.613 Arabi, N., Meftah, H., Amara, H., Kebaïli, O., & Berredjem, L. (2019). Valorization of recycled materials in development of self-compacting concrete: Mixing recycled concrete aggregates – Windshield waste glass aggregates. Construction and Building Materials , 209 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.024 Blomsma, F., Pieroni, M., Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D. C. A., Hildenbrand, J., Kristinsdottir, A. R., Kristoffersen, E., Shabazi, S., Nielsen, K. D., Jönbrink, A. K., Li, J., Wiik, C., & McAloone, T. C. (2019). Developing a circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production , 241 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118271 Bregnbak, D., & Avnstorp, C. (2019). Cement. In Kanerva’s Occupational Dermatology (pp. 699–711). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68617-2_48 Caroselli, M., Ruffolo, S. A., & Piqué, F. (2021). Mortars and plasters—how to manage mortars and plasters conservation. In Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (Vol. 13, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01409-x Dinh, H. L., Liu, J., Ong, D. E. L., & Doh, J. H. (2022). A sustainable solution to excessive river sand mining by utilizing by-products in concrete manufacturing: A state-of-the-art review. In Cleaner Materials (Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100140 Du, H., & Tan, K. H. (2017). Properties of high volume glass powder concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites , 75 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.10.010 Güneyisi, E., Atewi, Y. R., & Hasan, M. F. (2019). Fresh and rheological properties of glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete with nanosilica and fly ash blended. In Construction and Building Materials (Vol. 211). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.087 Hassani, M. S., Matos, J. C., Zhang, Y., & Teixeira, E. R. (2023). Green Concrete with Glass Powder—A Literature Review. Sustainability , 15 (20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014864 Hossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Lo, I. M. C., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Comparative LCA on using waste materials in the cement industry: A Hong Kong case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 120 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.012 Hubert, M. (2019). Industrial Glass Processing and Fabrication. In Springer Handbooks . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93728-1_34 Karellas, S., Giannakopoulos, D., Hatzilau, C. S., Dolianitis, I., Skarpetis, G., & Zitounis, T. (2018). The potential of WHR/batch and cullet preheating for energy efficiency in the EU ETS glass industry and the related energy incentives. Energy Efficiency , 11 (5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9587-3 Liu, T., Wei, H., Zou, D., Zhou, A., & Jian, H. (2020). Utilization of waste cathode ray tube funnel glass for ultra-high performance concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production , 249 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119333 Mastali, M., Dalvand, A., Sattarifard, A. R., & Abdollahnejad, Z. (2018). Effect of different lengths and dosages of recycled glass fibres on the fresh and hardened properties of SCC. Magazine of Concrete Research , 70 (22). https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00180 Meraz, M. M., Mim, N. J., Mehedi, M. T., Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., Shrestha, R. K., Kader Arafin, S. A., Bibi, T., Hussain, M. S., Billah, M. M., Bhattacharya, B., Aftab, M. R., Paul, S. K., Paul, P., & Meraz, M. M. (2023). Performance evaluation of high-performance self-compacting concrete with waste glass aggregate and metakaolin. Journal of Building Engineering , 67 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105976 Siad, H., Lachemi, M., Sahmaran, M., Mesbah, H. A., & Hossain, K. M. A. (2018). Use of recycled glass powder to improve the performance properties of high volume fly ash-engineered cementitious composites. Construction and Building Materials , 163 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.067 Zhang, N., Yan, C., Li, L., & Khan, M. (2022). Assessment of fiber factor for the fracture toughness of polyethylene fiber reinforced geopolymer. Construction and Building Materials , 319 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126130 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 21 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Jul, 2025 Editor invited by journal 29 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 25 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7166264","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492606043,"identity":"d0f9deca-4cfa-4ae3-ac2a-cf6565795188","order_by":0,"name":"Mutiu Adelodun Akinpelu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwara State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mutiu","middleName":"Adelodun","lastName":"Akinpelu","suffix":""},{"id":492606044,"identity":"b6bc2f00-69c3-49a1-a288-1a207d48adac","order_by":1,"name":"Abdulbaaqi Abiodun Olayiwola","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwara State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulbaaqi","middleName":"Abiodun","lastName":"Olayiwola","suffix":""},{"id":492606045,"identity":"fef287a0-49be-44e8-aeca-512c32ac8519","order_by":2,"name":"Marafa Ash-Shu’ara Salman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwara State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marafa","middleName":"Ash-Shu’ara","lastName":"Salman","suffix":""},{"id":492606046,"identity":"2508818b-d17f-4fe6-867b-26a72dc6a441","order_by":3,"name":"Munirat Romoke Ibrahim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwara State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Munirat","middleName":"Romoke","lastName":"Ibrahim","suffix":""},{"id":492606047,"identity":"1c221632-03d2-4c3f-8120-67aff98903f9","order_by":4,"name":"Zainab Tolu Giwa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwara State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zainab","middleName":"Tolu","lastName":"Giwa","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-19 19:23:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87955597,"identity":"386d3dbf-c83b-4383-b84f-ded4f5b15cfc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMaterials\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/4b34ea45dd6ddcc13f485319.jpg"},{"id":87955598,"identity":"f6772a1a-05d6-4bea-be19-0989a07b3fbb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34345,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePowdered samples\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/364070285be5e43b42fb3dd6.jpg"},{"id":87956057,"identity":"1c1b722e-7a61-41f1-abfa-18dac19f7690","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:15:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35675,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ecompressive strength test\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/de727cb3dd7e908e298e8351.jpg"},{"id":87955600,"identity":"b3976fef-21ba-4ba4-903f-34943075ec21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29079,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eflexural strength test\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/8ddd386e92488989d83dc4f0.jpg"},{"id":87955603,"identity":"1589a16c-1161-41fa-8c01-da037450ff06","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92638,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMeasuring length change after MgSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e exposure\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/1a947aae35923e30a786b2c2.jpg"},{"id":87956060,"identity":"5325fb67-2c75-462d-ada8-9aa0ff674c50","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:15:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56536,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of glass powder\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/8778930c51bc5c21af5e0e65.jpg"},{"id":87956063,"identity":"a117bede-f445-4e8f-9aa4-0f773c44072b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:15:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71431,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of M1\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/59380c70f40788f91a547468.jpg"},{"id":87956059,"identity":"0766e9fb-94ea-4282-a7b1-fa610dd26ed4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:15:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80484,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of M2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/13c446907d6ee01297144294.jpg"},{"id":87955613,"identity":"d99b3856-fea9-45e5-99cf-132d2ac189d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71659,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of sample M3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/a517a837d4c35b64a1220032.jpg"},{"id":87956634,"identity":"bde337ea-a3f9-49f6-aa25-b42e299da6db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:23:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":90040,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of M4\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/f639babb653680718bbee39f.jpg"},{"id":87955605,"identity":"5c1fd57a-90bc-4fbe-9514-a9c196e9fc4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70642,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD pattern of M7\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/b9ce81a917475a6fdad2cb9c.jpg"},{"id":87955615,"identity":"c4f381ff-320f-45b5-b6e1-da07cd796dd7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56284,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of Waste glass powder\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/0ef6c908f0f6db48655fdf42.jpg"},{"id":87955617,"identity":"0d5a0c00-ba3b-4ece-b13f-30a6194f17cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":145844,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of M1\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/8a11e5380067b041d03a4f80.jpg"},{"id":87955610,"identity":"77760ea3-ce62-45c0-8794-37b1edcd4c1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":14,"title":"Figure 14","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133452,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of M2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"14.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/53aebdf0c4ed46c46b72c7da.jpg"},{"id":87955625,"identity":"cc6d5a18-ba6b-4682-adc4-9e9dca7289e3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":15,"title":"Figure 15","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":124608,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of M3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"15.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/bb849cda867a4ee2408b748e.jpg"},{"id":87955621,"identity":"4090ee3c-6e16-49ed-96b1-cf2f15dbb16a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":16,"title":"Figure 16","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":115502,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of M4\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"16.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/47cf2fdaa18723d786e61179.jpg"},{"id":87955652,"identity":"9e9c8308-3d80-4d50-97aa-2aa7f4cd5910","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":17,"title":"Figure 17","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSEM image of M7\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"17.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/b57189ff4833bc59c2d87d4f.jpg"},{"id":87956071,"identity":"9894dfa6-7a00-4001-a6da-2fd9a8a17158","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:15:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":18,"title":"Figure 18","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100225,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCompressive strength results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"18.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/8edca6be8b0c957ea9a328fe.jpg"},{"id":87955618,"identity":"3e2346ec-189e-4ec1-a06d-7a500a5f27d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:29","extension":"jpg","order_by":19,"title":"Figure 19","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130554,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlexural strength results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"19.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/f28dd6174bdf4245b391f080.jpg"},{"id":87956648,"identity":"a254f5a5-8f15-421c-b575-fcc5692ba253","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:23:31","extension":"jpg","order_by":20,"title":"Figure 20","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":73625,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCompressive Strength Analysis After MgSO₄ Exposure\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"20.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/d94b00f7e087d764c550c9f3.jpg"},{"id":87955656,"identity":"00a9d591-2204-4c0a-b79b-360522bd244d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:31","extension":"jpg","order_by":21,"title":"Figure 21","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67633,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlexural Strength Analysis After MgSO₄ Exposure\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"21.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/8896fc480298ffaabb00e78f.jpg"},{"id":87955623,"identity":"dfdd8e46-fb45-404f-9c41-360fcc4c2a6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:07:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":22,"title":"Figure 22","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80669,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChange in length percentage result\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"22.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/bfd0ea855b71fec89e4adf37.jpg"},{"id":87957320,"identity":"9bda35e0-7085-47e9-a154-3e78620be826","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 19:39:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2914831,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7166264/v1/e70872a2-0546-47ce-81b2-dc76c5c5e2fe.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Durability Assessment of Sisal Fiber Reinforced-Mortar with Waste Glass Powder as A Partial Replacement for Cement in an Aggressive Environment","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMortar is a fundamental construction material used as a binding agent in masonry, plastering, and repair applications. It is composed of cementitious materials (such as cement or lime), fine aggregates (typically sand), and water, mixed to form a cohesive paste (Caroselli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike concrete, mortar lacks coarse aggregates, resulting in a smoother, more workable consistency that allows it to fill gaps between bricks, stones, or blocks, ensuring structural integrity and load distribution. Mortar serves multiple functions, including bonding masonry units, sealing joints against weather penetration, and providing a finished surface for plastering. Its properties\u0026mdash;such as workability, strength, and durability\u0026mdash;are influenced by the mix proportions, type of binder, and curing conditions. Traditional mortar types include cement mortar (high strength, rigid), lime mortar (flexible, breathable), and gypsum mortar (fast-setting, interior use) (Bregnbak \u0026amp; Avnstorp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In recent years, the glass industry has emerged as a significant contributor to both economic growth and sustainability efforts. Valued at approximately 31\u0026nbsp;billion dollars in the United States and generating around 130\u0026nbsp;billion dollars globally in 2019, the industry is expected to see continued growth. By 2025, the U.S. flat glass sector alone is projected to reach 44\u0026nbsp;billion dollars, and the global industry is anticipated to exceed 180\u0026nbsp;billion dollars by 2027. The glass industry is known for its high energy consumption (Hassani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). With energy costs being a major expense, many companies are striving to improve energy efficiency. Melting raw materials, which must reach temperatures of around 1500\u0026ndash;1600 degrees Celsius, primarily relies on fossil fuels, accounting for 85% of the energy used in furnaces. Electricity supplies the remaining 15%, powering various parts of the production process. The melting stage itself requires about 3 MJ/kg of energy (Hubert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Karellas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Glass's pozzolanic and filler properties make it a viable alternative to cement in recycling processes, potentially eliminating the need for remelting and packaging. Each year, 40 to 50\u0026nbsp;billion tons of sand and gravel are extracted globally, with a large portion used for concrete production. Like the glass industry, the cement industry is a significant greenhouse gas emitter, contributing about 3\u0026nbsp;billion tons of CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (7% of global emissions) in 2018. Replacing cement with glass powder could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12% and energy consumption by 15% (Ali et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Dinh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hossain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). To achieve sustainability goals, the principles of reducing, reusing, and recycling are crucial. Managing demand and minimizing waste production through improved material quality is the first step. Reusing glass is prioritized over recycling by the EU, as it is more sustainable by avoiding the additional remelting step (Blomsma et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Many forms of organic and inorganic fibers are recommended for use. Natural fibers such as coir, sisal, sugarcane, banana, bamboo, jute, wood, vegetables, bagasse, rice husk, flax, and kenaf are primarily used in concrete. These fibers contribute to sustainable development (Thakare et al., 2021). Historically, fibers like straw and horsehair have been used in bricks and plaster to enhance strength and durability. Reinforced concrete slabs using coir have shown promising results after extensive testing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural fibers exhibit high strength but have a low modulus of elasticity. This variability affects the properties of concrete significantly. Under stress and bending pressures, these concrete formulations achieve final strengths between 12 and 25 MPa. Coconut fibers, for instance, are stronger than synthetic fibers in concrete (Shah et al., 2022). Sisal fibers, when added to concrete, tend to reduce its strength compared to samples without fibers. The length of fibers, such as sisal and banana, influences the load transfer mechanism in the concrete matrix (Dhand et al., 2015). The performance of cement composites is enhanced by long sisal fibers arranged in layers within a steel mold. Vegetable fibers, like those from eucalyptus, improve mechanical performance compared to pine-based fibers after 200 aging cycles. The physical properties of concrete, including aggregate thin module and sand gravity, are crucial in these composites (Li et al., 2022). Under natural dry conditions, admixtures at 0.20% concentration are used in concrete mixtures. Different percentages of fibers like hemp and coir contribute to varying compressive strengths. For example, the substitution of cement with various fibers results in improved characteristics, although the strength might reduce slightly with the addition of fly ash. The specific weight of fibers like sisal is carefully measured for optimal performance (Rahuman \u0026amp; Yeshika, 2015). Natural fibers in concrete combinations exhibit varied tensile strengths under different conditions, such as exposure to water, sodium, and other immersions. The impact of saturated lime significantly reduces the tensile strength of fibers like sisal, jute, and hibiscus. After prolonged wet and dry cycles, fibers like coir retain a portion of their initial strength (Rahuman \u0026amp; Yeshika, 2015). Adding sugarcane bagasse marginally increases flexural strength by 3%. Raw jute, when applied to concrete with 1% cement weight, enhances flexural strength. Coconut fiber reinforcement also improves the flexural properties of epoxy polymers and concrete, with reinforced concrete glass and carbon fiber showing the best results (Hassani Niaki, 2023). Natural fibers like polypropylene and kenaf reduce water absorption due to their hydrophobic nature. Coir in concrete shows increased water absorption as its content increases (More \u0026amp; Subramanian, 2022). The combination of synthetic and natural fibers provides lightweight and durable concrete mixtures. Past research in the past has worked with sustainable these waste materials, Liu, Wei, Zou, Zhou, and Jian (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) replaced fine aggregates in ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) with recycled liquid crystal display (CRT) glass in amounts ranging from 25\u0026ndash;100% by volume. Using a constant water\u0026ndash;cement ratio and different superplasticizer levels, they observed increased flowability by 11 mm, 14 mm, 16 mm, and 12 mm for 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% WG additions, respectively, compared to the control mix. The improved workability resulting from WG inclusion highlights its potential as a viable recycled material (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that glass can be effectively used in the production of high-performance concrete (HPC), especially where high flowability is essential. Moreover, WG can enhance workability without relying heavily on chemical admixtures like high-range water reducers (HRWR) or superplasticizers (Almeshal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Arabi, Meftah, Amara, Keba\u0026iuml;li, and Berredjem (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) partially replaced coarse aggregate in self-compacting concrete (SCC) with recycled windshield glass in proportions ranging from 25\u0026ndash;100% by volume. They employed different water\u0026ndash;cement ratios (between 0.60 and 0.69) along with varying doses of superplasticizers. Their results indicated a decline in slump flow by 3%, 8%, 9%, and 11% when 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of WG were incorporated, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeraz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the effect of recycled waste glass (WG) on the flowability, strength, durability properties, and temperature resistance of UHPGC. The mixtures were prepared by replacing natural sand with varying ratios of WG. The samples were submerged in 2% H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e and 5% MgSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e solutions and subjected to high temperatures for 1.5 hours. The results showed that the flowability increased with WG content, while the compressive strength decreased for the substituted 2% natural sand. In this study by Ahmad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), sand was replaced with glass weights of different sizes, using white and green glass. The results showed that increasing the replacement ratio up to 10% increased flowability, while decreasing it with continuous increase. Understanding the composition and properties of mortar is crucial for the construction industry. A study by G\u0026uuml;neyisi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) tested plain and glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete (SCC) specimens for their fresh and reological properties. Results showed that SCC with 2% and 4% NS and maximum GF achieved a lower workability enhancement rate. Mastali et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the use of recycled glass fibres in self-compacting concrete (SCC). Different fibre volume fractions and lengths were used to assess the fresh and hardened properties of the fibre-reinforced SCCs. The fresh properties were evaluated in terms of flowability and viscosity, while the hardened properties were characterized in terms of ultrasonic pulse velocity, compressive strength, flexural strength, and impact resistance. The specimens were tested experimentally to characterize their mechanical properties and impact resistance. The results showed that increasing the volume fraction and length of the recycled glass fibres improved fresh properties. Du and Tan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and Siade et al. (2018) observed that incorporating up to 45% GP, with or without superplasticizer (SP), reduced chloride ion penetration. However, increasing GP content to 60% resulted in lower chloride ion content in samples with SP, while samples without SP showed higher penetration. As concrete ages, its pore structure improves, reducing chloride penetration, although higher penetration might be observed in the early stages of its life. Siad et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) also studied the effects of combining glass powder (GP) with furnace slag (SG), limestone powder (LP), and fly ash (FA) on sulfate attack resistance. They discovered that increasing the amount of GP enhanced resistance to 5% H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e after 12 weeks, with the best results observed in mixes containing 20% GP, 20% LP, and 45% GP alone. All three additives positively influenced sulfate resistance, with higher GP percentages having a more significant effect. However, this improvement came with a considerable reduction in compressive strength, ranging from 30\u0026ndash;54%, which is quite substantial. The construction sector continues to grapple with durability challenges in concrete structures exposed to harsh environmental conditions; despite the known advantages of fiber reinforcement, the potential benefits of incorporating recycled materials like glass waste powder (GWP) in mortar systems remain underexplored. This research gap presents a critical opportunity to investigate how such modifications can enhance the mechanical properties and durability performance of fiber-reinforced mortar. Accordingly, this study examines the synergistic effects of GWP and fiber reinforcement in mortar systems, with the overarching goal of developing more sustainable and durable mortar formulations suitable for demanding construction applications. The aim of this study is to assess the durability properties of fiber-reinforced mortar incorporating waste glass powder as a supplementary cementitious material. The objectives of this project are to evaluate the chemical composition and microstructural properties of waste glass powder (WGP), determine the strength properties of the fiber-reinforced mortar (FRM) blended with WGP when exposed to magnesium sulfate at varying curing periods, and assess the impact of magnesium sulfate exposure on the chemical composition and microstructural properties of the mortar samples.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis section explains the materials used, the mixing techniques, and the testing methods employed in this research project. The materials utilized include Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), fine aggregate, water, waste glass powder, sisal fibers, and magnesium sulfate. The cement used was BUA 42.5R grade OPC, sourced from Mohadis Construction Limited in Ilorin, Kwara State, and it complied with ASTM C150 (2021) specifications for structural applications. The fine aggregate, obtained from the same supplier in Ilorin, met the requirements of ASTM C33 (2016). Potable water conforming to ASTM D1193-20 was used in all mix preparations. Waste glass was collected from restaurants, bars, and shebeens in Ilorin; after thorough cleaning and manual sorting to remove non-glass materials, it was mechanically crushed, ground to fine particles using a mechanical grinder, and sieved to pass through a 90-micron sieve. This ensured a uniform particle size suitable for use as a supplementary cementitious material in mortar production, with the grinding carried out at the Civil Engineering Department Laboratory, LAUTECH, Ogbomosho. Sisal fibers were sourced in Ilorin, where they were cleaned, sun-dried, manually separated for uniformity, and trimmed into 30 mm lengths before use in the concrete mix. Finally, magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO₄\u0026middot;7H₂O), AR grade with a purity of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;99%, was locally sourced from Irebamidele Chemical Store in Ilorin and supplied in 500 g bottles.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe mix proportions in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e were designed to evaluate the effects of varying waste glass powder (GP) contents as partial cement replacements and different sisal fiber volumes. The control mix used a cement:sand:water ratio of 1:2.75:0.95 without GP or fiber. GP was introduced at 7.5%, 15%, and 22.5% replacement levels, and sisal fiber was added at 0%, 0.5%, and 1.0% by volume. A total of twelve mixes were prepared, starting with the control mix (M1) containing 5.2 kg of cement, 14.3 kg of sand, and 4948 ml of water. In M2 and M3, the same base mix was used, but sisal fiber was added at 0.5% and 1.0% to assess its individual effect. For M4 to M6, 7.5% of cement was replaced with 0.39 kg GP, reducing cement to 4.81 kg, and fiber was varied across 0%, 0.5%, and 1.0%. M7 to M9 incorporated 15% GP (0.78 kg) with cement reduced to 4.42 kg, and the same fiber variations, while M10 to M12 used 22.5% GP (1.17 kg) with 4.03 kg of cement and the same range of fiber content. In all mixes, sand and water remained constant to ensure comparability. Three 50 mm cubes were cast for compressive strength, three 40 \u0026times; 40 \u0026times; 160 mm prisms for flexural strength, and three 50 mm cubes for durability. All specimens were cast using a mechanical vibration table, left at room temperature for 24 hours, demolded, and cured in water at 27\u0026deg;C until testing. Curing durations were 7, 28, 56, and 90 days.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMix proportion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMix ID\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSisal Fiber Content (% by Cement)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGP (kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSand (kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater (ml)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.420\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.420\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4948\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Experimental Programme\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Tests on Microstructural Properties\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were conducted to evaluate the chemical composition, crystalline phases, and microstructural morphology of the mortar and glass powder samples. Figure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the powdered mortar samples used in these tests.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlass powder samples were oven-dried at 105\u0026deg;C for 24 hours and ground to below 75 \u0026micro;m. The powder was either pressed into pellets or fused into glass beads, then analyzed using an XRF spectrometer. The instrument detected emitted fluorescent X-rays to determine the elemental oxide composition, including SiO₂, Al₂O₃, CaO, and Fe₂O₃, using calibrated standards and analysis software.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMortar and glass powder samples were cleaned with distilled water, dried, and sectioned if necessary. Each sample was mounted on a conductive stub and coated with a thin gold layer to prevent charging. SEM imaging was conducted under high vacuum with optimized voltage and working distance. Surface morphology and fiber\u0026ndash;matrix interaction were observed at various magnifications, and EDS was used to determine elemental composition. The analysis followed ASTM E1508 (2012) at the Integrated Research Laboratories, Ibadan.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 X-ray Diffraction (XRD)\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCrushed and ground mortar samples (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;75 \u0026micro;m) were spread onto holders and analyzed using Cu-K\u0026alpha; radiation (\u0026lambda;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.5406 \u0026Aring;) at 40 kV and 30 mA, over a 2\u0026theta; range of 5\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;70\u0026deg;, with a 0.02\u0026deg; step size. Diffraction patterns were interpreted using HighScore or Match!\u0026reg; software and the ICDD database to identify phases like C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H, portlandite, and ettringite, as well as amorphous glass phases. All procedures adhered to ASTM C1365-18.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Mechanical Properties Test\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the mechanical performance of mortar incorporating sisal fiber and waste glass powder, compressive strength, flexural strength, and magnesium sulfate resistance tests were conducted following relevant ASTM standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Compressive strength test\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe compressive strength test was performed to determine the load-bearing capacity of the modified mortar. Standard 50 \u0026times; 50 \u0026times; 50 mm cubes were prepared by thoroughly mixing the constituents, casting them into molds, and compacting the mix. The specimens were cured in water for 7, 28, 56, 90, and 120 days. After each curing period, the samples were removed, surface-dried, and tested using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) at the University of Ilorin. The load was applied gradually until failure, and the peak load was recorded in accordance with ASTM C109 (2021), as shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Flexural strength test\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe flexural strength test assessed the mortar\u0026rsquo;s bending resistance using prismatic specimens of size 40 \u0026times; 40 \u0026times; 160 mm, cured for the same durations. The test was conducted under a three-point loading configuration using a UTM, following ASTM C348 (2002). Each beam was placed on two support rollers, and a central load was applied until fracture occurred. The maximum breaking load was recorded and used to calculate flexural strength. This test provided insights into the contribution of fibers and glass powder to tensile performance and crack resistance of the mortar under flexural stress (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Sulfate attack\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo assess resistance to sulfate attack, mortar bars were tested according to ASTM C1012/C1012M\u0026ndash;24. After 28 days of moist curing, the bars were immersed in a freshly prepared 5% magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄\u0026middot;7H₂O) solution, made by dissolving 50 g of MgSO₄ in 1 L of distilled water. The solution was maintained at 23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2\u0026deg;C, with pH controlled between 6.0 and 8.0. Each specimen was exposed at a solution-to-mortar volume ratio of 4.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5, typically requiring 625\u0026ndash;800 mL per bar. Deterioration was monitored at 30, 60, and 90 days by visual inspection for cracks and scaling, followed by compressive strength testing. A control group was submerged in tap water for comparison. This test simulated long-term exposure to aggressive environments and evaluated the durability of the modified mortar (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents and interprets the findings from all experimental tests conducted on mortar mixes incorporating sisal fiber and waste glass powder (GP), highlighting key observations, trends, and implications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.1 XRF Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe XRF results (Table 2) confirm the pozzolanic potential of the glass powder used. SiO₂ content was 52.54%, while the combined oxides (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃) amounted to 85.04%, surpassing the ASTM C618 minimum requirement of 70% for Class N pozzolans. These values indicate the material\u0026apos;s suitability as a supplementary cementitious material.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Chemical composition of glass Powder\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComponent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlass powder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAl₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMnO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP₂O₅\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK₂O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTiO₂\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMgO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNa₂O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e460\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCu\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.04\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.2 XRD Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe XRD pattern in Figure 6 reveals sharp peaks indicating a predominantly crystalline structure with phases such as kaolinite, quartz, albite, and muscovite. The absence of a broad hump suggests minimal amorphous content, pointing to a clay-based or ceramic origin rather than soda-lime glass.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eXRD patterns before and after magnesium sulfate exposure (Figures 7\u0026ndash;10) reveal both crystalline and amorphous phases. Quartz consistently dominates all mixes, while portlandite, calcite, and C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H phases indicate cement hydration. Post-exposure patterns show reduced portlandite intensity and formation of secondary phases such as ettringite and calcite. Amorphous humps were minimal, indicating limited gel-phase formation. M3 and M7 show signs of carbonation and secondary product formation, suggesting sulfate interaction and leaching effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.1 XRD of M1 (control)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eXRD analysis of Sample M1 (Figure 7) shows sharp quartz peaks at 21\u0026deg;, 26.5\u0026deg;, 31\u0026deg;, 36\u0026deg;, and 50\u0026deg;, along with signals from kaolinite, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and traces of mica, smectite, and illite. A broad hump at 20\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;25\u0026deg; indicates C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H gel, confirming mixed crystalline\u0026ndash;amorphous phases and pozzolanic activity. After 30 days of sulfate exposure, Sample M1A (Figure 7b) displays defined peaks at (100), (101), (200), (220), and (311), indicating quartz, calcite, and portlandite. Reduced portlandite and absence of gypsum suggest leaching as the main degradation mode, while elevated background near 20\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;30\u0026deg; points to amorphous silica or C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H breakdown\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.2 XRD of M2 (0.5% Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Figure 8, Sharp peaks between 5\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;75\u0026deg; 2\u0026theta; with dominant quartz (21\u0026deg;, 27\u0026deg;, 31\u0026deg;, 39\u0026deg;, 50\u0026deg;). Minor kaolinite, mica, and iron oxide indicate aluminosilicates. CaO (25\u0026deg;, 38\u0026deg;) and zeolite (45\u0026deg;, 70\u0026deg;) suggest hydration and pozzolanic interactions. A broad hump \u0026lt;15\u0026deg; indicates C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H gel formation. After Exposure: Peaks at (002), (100), (101), etc., reflect quartz, residual portlandite, and carbonate phases. (002) suggests ettringite or LDH formation. Absence of amorphous hump implies limited gel degradation, aligning with SEM-observed microcracks but no gel corrosion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.3 XRD of M3 (1% Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 9 show XRD pattern of sample M3. \u0026nbsp;Before exposure, the crystalline profile (20\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;70\u0026deg; 2\u0026theta;) was quartz-dominated, with kaolinite, zeolite, and traces of CaO, Fe₂O₃, and calcite present; fiber addition enhanced matrix uniformity with minimal phase disruption. After exposure, clear diffraction peaks at (002), (100), (200), and others indicated the presence of quartz, portlandite, and calcite, with the (002) reflection suggesting sulfate-induced secondary phases. The absence of a broad hump implied minimal C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H breakdown, while minor peak shifts pointed to possible ion exchange or leaching.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.4 XRD of M4 (7.5% GP)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 10 shows XRD pattern of M4. Before exposure, the XRD pattern was dominated by quartz peaks at 26.6\u0026deg;, 36.5\u0026deg;, and 50\u0026deg;, accompanied by kaolinite, mica, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and zeolite, indicating active pozzolanic behavior. After exposure, intensified crystalline peaks at (100), (200), and (300) suggested enhanced sulfate reactions, while a slight baseline elevation near 10\u0026deg; indicated minor amorphous phases originating from ground pozzolan (GP). The reduced portlandite content reflected increased pozzolanic consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.2.5 XRD of M7 (15% GP + Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 11 shows XRD pattern of M7. Before exposure, the matrix was quartz-dominant with kaolinite, mica, CaO, Fe₂O₃, and zeolite, while a broader amorphous region reflected active pozzolanic reactions. After exposure, the appearance of a new (311) peak suggested the formation of complex sulfate-induced mineral phases, with persistent quartz and calcite peaks indicating structural retention. The reduced intensities of (220) and (300) peaks reflected balanced reactivity, and the slightly elevated background between 20\u0026deg;\u0026ndash;30\u0026deg; hinted at amorphous silica presence or possible fiber degradation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.3 SEM Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWaste Glass Powder (Figure 12):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe powder exhibits layered, porous structures with high surface area, ideal for pozzolanic reactivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSEM images before exposure show relatively dense matrices, with fiber\u0026ndash;matrix interaction improving in M2 and M3. After sulfate exposure, samples exhibited microcracking, pitting, and loss of matrix cohesion. M2 and M6 (containing fibers) showed moderate resistance due to crack-bridging, while M4 and M10 revealed deeper structural deterioration due to high GP content. M7 (high GP + fiber) showed the most severe porosity and internal stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.3.1 SEM Image of M1 (0% GP, No Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore exposure, SEM imaging at 9,000\u0026times; magnification revealed that M1 contained non-uniform particles ranging from sharp-edged to smooth, with surface irregularities and microvoids characteristic of brittle cement-based composites. After exposure, the 4,000\u0026times; image showed extensive degradation marked by increased porosity, surface etching, and microcracks resulting from sulfate attack. In the absence of ground pozzolan (GP) or fibers, the matrix exhibited uniform damage, poor cohesion, and no apparent resistance to sulfate ingress, consistent with literature findings that control mortars are more susceptible to sulfate-induced deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.3.2 SEM Image of M2 (0.5% Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore exposure, SEM imaging at 6,000\u0026times; magnification showed M2 as a hydrated cement matrix embedded with sisal fibers\u0026mdash;some well-bonded, others partially detached\u0026mdash;suggesting early-stage matrix\u0026ndash;fiber interaction. After exposure, the 5,000\u0026times; image revealed fine microcracks, pitting, and interfacial degradation, including fiber swelling and debonding due to sulfate hydrolysis. While the limited fiber dosage provided minor crack-bridging effects, the absence of ground pozzolan (GP) compromised sulfate resistance, leading to degradation of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) and reduced overall durability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.3.3 SEM Image of M3 (1% Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore exposure, SEM imaging at 5,000\u0026times; magnification revealed that M3 had a porous, loosely packed matrix with voids and micro-fissures, where fiber presence appeared to limit matrix densification. After exposure, sulfate attack led to microcracks, surface erosion, and visible fiber degradation. While the fibers provided slight delay in crack propagation, the absence of pozzolanic additives left the matrix highly vulnerable to sulfate-induced damage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.3.4 SEM Image of M4 (7.5% GP)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore exposure, M4 exhibited smooth, spherical glass particles embedded within a rough, compact matrix, featuring distinct interfaces that suggested potential for long-term pozzolanic reactivity. After exposure, SEM imaging at 6,000\u0026times; revealed deeper surface cavities, merged microcracks, and signs of delamination, indicating more severe damage than observed in M3A. While the presence of ground pozzolan (GP) enhanced chemical resistance by reducing Ca(OH)₂ content, the absence of fibers limited mechanical integrity, making the matrix more susceptible to sulfate-induced deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.3.5 SEM Image of M7 (15% GP + Fiber)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore exposure, M7 exhibited well-dispersed additives with clearly defined interfacial zones and a compact matrix morphology influenced by the high ground pozzolan (GP) content, indicating strong load transfer and active pozzolanic reactions. After sulfate exposure, the microstructure showed increased porosity, microcracking, and particle breakdown, reflecting sulfate-induced stress and matrix degradation, although the pozzolanic contributions appeared to mitigate the rate of deterioration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Compressive Strength\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompressive strength (Figure 18) improved with fiber addition in M2 and M3, reaching 19.4 MPa and 20.0 MPa respectively at 120 days, outperforming the control (17.5 MPa). Moderate GP levels (7.5\u0026ndash;15%) with fibers yielded good strength retention. However, excessive GP (22.5%) reduced performance (like M11: 12.4 MPa), indicating that high replacement levels dilute cementitious content and hinder hydration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Flexural Strength\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFlexural strength (Figure 19) followed similar trends as compressive strength. M3 achieved the highest strength (8.0 MPa), while M12 showed the lowest (5.7 MPa), a 14.93% reduction from control. Fiber addition at 0\u0026ndash;1% significantly improved strength in mixes without GP. Moderate GP (7.5\u0026ndash;15%) maintained flexural performance, but 22.5% GP replacement consistently reduced it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.6 Magnesium Sulfate Attack\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.6.1 Compressive Strength After Exposure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompressive strength declined after sulfate exposure across all mixes (Figure 20). The least degradation occurred in M6 (7.5% GP + 1% fiber, 14.16% loss) and M8 (15% GP + 0.5% fiber, 14.81% loss), indicating optimal synergy at these dosages. The highest deterioration occurred in M11 (22.5% GP + 0.5% fiber, 34.29% loss), revealing poor sulfate resistance at excessive GP content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e3.6.2 Flexural Strength After Exposure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 21 shows that all mixes experienced flexural strength loss post-exposure. M5 (7.5% GP + 0.5% fiber) had the lowest reduction (6.90%), while M10 (22.5% GP, no fiber) had the highest (18.52%). Fiber alone did not significantly improve resistance in high-GP mixes. Excessive fiber at low GP levels (M6) led to higher degradation (11.32%), likely due to poor fiber-matrix compatibility under chemical stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.7 Length Change\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLength change data (Figure 22) revealed progressive expansion over time, consistent with sulfate-induced ettringite and gypsum formation. Control mixes (M1\u0026ndash;M3) showed minimal expansion, while GP mixes\u0026mdash;especially M10 (22.5% GP, 0.112 mm)\u0026mdash;expanded the most. Fiber addition consistently reduced deformation (e.g., M12: 0.088 mm), confirming their role in crack resistance and dimensional stability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following are conclusions of study:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. WGP showed high pozzolanic potential with a combined oxide content (SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃) of 85.04%, exceeding ASTM C618 minimum. SEM revealed rough, porous particles with high surface area, suitable for C\u0026ndash;S\u0026ndash;H formation. However, XRD indicated the presence of crystalline phases like quartz and kaolinite, suggesting partial amorphousness or mixed-source origin.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Magnesium sulfate exposure reduced strength across all mixes; however, compressive and flexural strengths were best retained in M6 (7.5% GP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1% fiber) with only 14.16% compressive strength loss, and M5 (7.5% GP\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;0.5% fiber) with just 6.90% flexural strength loss. While fiber enhanced crack resistance and toughness, excessive GP replacement at 22.5% led to significant strength loss and expansion regardless of fiber inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. XRD patterns after exposure revealed leaching of portlandite, formation of calcite, and reduced amorphous C-S-H gel. SEM confirmed microcracking, porosity, and sulfate-induced degradation, especially at higher GP levels. Expansion tests showed greater deformation with increased GP, while fiber inclusion mitigated damage. A 7.5% GP replacement with 0.5\u0026ndash;1% fiber is considered optimal, as it balances good workability (slump\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;52 mm), improved durability and strength retention after sulfate exposure, acceptable microstructural stability as confirmed by SEM and XRD, and controlled expansion with minimal internal damage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRecommendations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings, it is recommended that waste glass powder (WGP) be used at a moderate replacement level of 7.5%, as it offers an effective balance between strength, durability, and workability. This dosage enhances the pozzolanic activity without significantly diluting cement hydration, as shown by the stable performance in both mechanical strength and sulfate resistance. To further improve the structural integrity and mitigate sulfate-induced deterioration, the incorporation of 0.5\u0026ndash;1% natural fiber, particularly sisal fiber, is advisable, as it enhances crack-bridging and reduces expansion. However, excessive fiber content or WGP levels above 15% are not recommended, as they tend to reduce workability, compromise microstructural uniformity, and accelerate degradation under aggressive chemical environments. Proper mix design adjustments, such as the use of water-reducing admixtures, may be necessary to counterbalance the increased water demand associated with WGP\u0026rsquo;s porous and irregular structure. Overall, optimizing both the pozzolanic and reinforcing components is crucial to producing a durable, sustainable, and chemically resistant mortar composite.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Registration:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable (This study is not a clinical trial).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e All authors contributed to the conception, design, material sourcing, experimental procedures, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interest Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with this research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, Dr. Abdulbaaqi Abiodun Olayiwola, upon reasonable request. All relevant data supporting the findings are included within the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, S. A., Rafiq, S. K., \u0026amp; Faraj, R. H. (2023). Evaluating the effect of waste glass granules on the fresh, mechanical properties and shear bond strength of sustainable cement mortar. \u003cem\u003eClean Technologies and Environmental Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02485-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, N., Abbas, J., Anwer, M., Khurram Khan Alwi, S., Naeem Anjum, M., Author, C., \u0026amp; Jaffar, A. (2015). The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced by Cement Production and Its Impact on Environment: A Review of Global Cement Processing. \u003cem\u003eGlorious Sun School of Business and Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmeshal, I., Al-Tayeb, M. M., Qaidi, S. M. A., Abu Bakar, B. H., \u0026amp; Tayeh, B. A. (2022). Mechanical properties of eco-friendly cements-based glass powder in aggressive medium. \u003cem\u003eMaterials Today: Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.613\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArabi, N., Meftah, H., Amara, H., Keba\u0026iuml;li, O., \u0026amp; Berredjem, L. (2019). Valorization of recycled materials in development of self-compacting concrete: Mixing recycled concrete aggregates \u0026ndash; Windshield waste glass aggregates. \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e209\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlomsma, F., Pieroni, M., Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D. C. A., Hildenbrand, J., Kristinsdottir, A. R., Kristoffersen, E., Shabazi, S., Nielsen, K. D., J\u0026ouml;nbrink, A. K., Li, J., Wiik, C., \u0026amp; McAloone, T. C. (2019). Developing a circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e241\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118271\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBregnbak, D., \u0026amp; Avnstorp, C. (2019). Cement. In \u003cem\u003eKanerva\u0026rsquo;s Occupational Dermatology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 699\u0026ndash;711). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68617-2_48\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaroselli, M., Ruffolo, S. A., \u0026amp; Piqu\u0026eacute;, F. (2021). Mortars and plasters\u0026mdash;how to manage mortars and plasters conservation. In \u003cem\u003eArchaeological and Anthropological Sciences\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 13, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01409-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDinh, H. L., Liu, J., Ong, D. E. L., \u0026amp; Doh, J. H. (2022). A sustainable solution to excessive river sand mining by utilizing by-products in concrete manufacturing: A state-of-the-art review. In \u003cem\u003eCleaner Materials\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100140\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDu, H., \u0026amp; Tan, K. H. (2017). Properties of high volume glass powder concrete. \u003cem\u003eCement and Concrete Composites\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.10.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026uuml;neyisi, E., Atewi, Y. R., \u0026amp; Hasan, M. F. (2019). Fresh and rheological properties of glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete with nanosilica and fly ash blended. In \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 211). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.087\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassani, M. S., Matos, J. C., Zhang, Y., \u0026amp; Teixeira, E. R. (2023). Green Concrete with Glass Powder\u0026mdash;A Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014864\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHossain, M. U., Poon, C. S., Lo, I. M. C., \u0026amp; Cheng, J. C. P. (2017). Comparative LCA on using waste materials in the cement industry: A Hong Kong case study. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e120\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.12.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHubert, M. (2019). Industrial Glass Processing and Fabrication. In \u003cem\u003eSpringer Handbooks\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93728-1_34\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarellas, S., Giannakopoulos, D., Hatzilau, C. S., Dolianitis, I., Skarpetis, G., \u0026amp; Zitounis, T. (2018). The potential of WHR/batch and cullet preheating for energy efficiency in the EU ETS glass industry and the related energy incentives. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Efficiency\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-017-9587-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, T., Wei, H., Zou, D., Zhou, A., \u0026amp; Jian, H. (2020). Utilization of waste cathode ray tube funnel glass for ultra-high performance concrete. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e249\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119333\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMastali, M., Dalvand, A., Sattarifard, A. R., \u0026amp; Abdollahnejad, Z. (2018). Effect of different lengths and dosages of recycled glass fibres on the fresh and hardened properties of SCC. \u003cem\u003eMagazine of Concrete Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e(22). https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.17.00180\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeraz, M. M., Mim, N. J., Mehedi, M. T., Noroozinejad Farsangi, E., Shrestha, R. K., Kader Arafin, S. A., Bibi, T., Hussain, M. S., Billah, M. M., Bhattacharya, B., Aftab, M. R., Paul, S. K., Paul, P., \u0026amp; Meraz, M. M. (2023). Performance evaluation of high-performance self-compacting concrete with waste glass aggregate and metakaolin. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Building Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105976\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiad, H., Lachemi, M., Sahmaran, M., Mesbah, H. A., \u0026amp; Hossain, K. M. A. (2018). Use of recycled glass powder to improve the performance properties of high volume fly ash-engineered cementitious composites. \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e163\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.067\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, N., Yan, C., Li, L., \u0026amp; Khan, M. (2022). Assessment of fiber factor for the fracture toughness of polyethylene fiber reinforced geopolymer. \u003cem\u003eConstruction and Building Materials\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e319\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126130\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"discover-concrete-and-cement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Concrete and Cement","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMortar plays a crucial role in construction, serving as a binder in masonry, plastering, and repairs. However, durability remains a key challenge, especially under harsh environmental conditions. The potential of incorporating glass waste powder (GWP) and fibers in mortar is under explored. This study addresses that gap by evaluating how GWP (0–20%) and sisal fiber (1%) affect the performance of fiber-reinforced Mortar (FR-M). SEM and XRD analyses, following ASTM E1508 and C1365, were used to study microstructure and mineral phases. Mechanical testing (ASTM C109, C348) assessed compressive and flexural strengths at multiple curing ages, while sulfate resistance was evaluated using 5% MgSO₄ solution per ASTM C1012. Findings show optimal performance at 7.5% GWP with 18 MPa compressive and 6.7 MPa flexural strength. While higher GWP levels reduced strength, sisal fiber consistently enhanced mechanical properties. A mix with 15% GWP + 0.5% fiber showed excellent sulfate resistance—only 13.8% flexural and 14.8% compressive loss, with 0.096 mm (0.06%) expansion after 90 days—demonstrating superior durability and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Durability Assessment of Sisal Fiber Reinforced-Mortar with Waste Glass Powder as A Partial Replacement for Cement in an Aggressive Environment","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-30 19:07:24","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7166264/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-08-21T14:46:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-18T11:24:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-18T08:56:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-15T20:31:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-15T07:16:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"75451614255869031109215716292916083121","date":"2025-08-13T15:52:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T06:39:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"119912538459475361567201035968459717326","date":"2025-08-11T01:41:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-09T14:17:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"12735940751384957424806242623383036342","date":"2025-08-09T06:42:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"100289299181301932011971010005006357745","date":"2025-08-08T20:33:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"272966101465250530101851577814143373431","date":"2025-08-08T16:43:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"228613860804391155593139005549158852680","date":"2025-08-08T16:00:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-29T12:44:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"52723092347001238675480846907939973636","date":"2025-07-29T12:27:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-29T06:57:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-29T06:45:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-29T06:19:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-25T21:59:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Concrete and Cement","date":"2025-07-25T21:56:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"discover-concrete-and-cement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Concrete and Cement","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9794358e-303a-4ebf-aac3-4258acb181ac","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-27T13:37:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-30 19:07:24","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7166264","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7166264","identity":"rs-7166264","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}