## 2 Experimental Procedure
### Testing Methods  
Table 5 shows the testing methods used in terms of the items evaluated in this study. The results of all tests were calculated as the average value for three specimens. In evaluation parameter 1, for the raw material properties, the article size distribution and grading distribution were measured according to the standards of ASTM C204 [30] and ASTM C136 [32]. Furthermore, X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used for microstructure \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mix ID** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Unit Weight (kg/m\({}^{3}\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AD (\({}^{4}\)) (B \(\times\) wt.\%)**} \\ \hline  & **OPC** & **FA** & **WSS (\({}^{1}\))** & **CS (\({}^{2}\))** & **CGA (\({}^{3}\))** & \\ \hline Plain & 330 & 0 & 351 & 521 & 878 & 0.90 \\ F10 & 297 & 33 & 349 & 517 & 872 & 0.85 \\ F20 & 264 & 66 & 346 & 514 & 866 & 0.80 \\ F30 & 231 & 99 & 344 & 510 & 860 & 0.75 \\ F40 & 198 & 132 & 342 & 507 & 854 & 0.70 \\ F50 & 165 & 165 & 339 & 503 & 848 & 0.65 \\ F60 & 132 & 198 & 337 & 500 & 843 & 0.60 \\ F70 & 99 & 231 & 335 & 496 & 837 & 0.55 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{(1)}\) WSS: washed sea sand; \({}^{(2)}\) CS: crushed sand; \({}^{(3)}\) CGA: crushed granite aggregate; \({}^{(4)}\) AD: chemical admixture.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mixing rates of concrete. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Fixed Item** & **Binder Type** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Admixture** \\ **Mixing Rate (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test Parameter**} \\ \hline  & & & Raw material properties \\  & & & - & Particle size distribution and \\  & & & grading distribution (\%) \\  & & & - & X-ray fluorescence and \\  & & 0 & & X-ray diffraction \\  & & 10 & - & Scanning electron microscope \\ B (\({}^{1}\)): 330 kg/m\({}^{3}\) & 20 & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Engineering properties \\ \end{tabular} } \\ W (\({}^{2}\)): 175 kg/m\({}^{3}\) & & & - & Unit water content (kg/m\({}^{3}\)) \\ T (\({}^{3}\)): 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 50 & & - & Slump (mm) and air content (\%) \\  & & 60 & - & Compressive strength (MPa) \\  & & 70 & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Durability properties \\ - Chloride penetration depth and \\ carbonation depth (mm) \\ - \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & & & - & Relative dynamic elasticity modulus \\  & & & and weight loss rate (\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{(1)}\) B: Binder weight per unit; \({}^{(2)}\) W: Water weight per unit; \({}^{(3)}\) T: Curing temperature.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Experimental design. analysis, and tests were performed according to the standards of ASTM C114 [33] and ASTM C457 [34], and ASTM C1723 [35], respectively. In evaluation parameter 2, slump and air volume tests were conducted based on ASTM C143 [36] and ASTM C231 [37]. For the compressive strength test, ASTM C873 [38] and ASTM C39 [39] were referenced. Compressive strength specimens were fabricated at a columnar mold (size: \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 200 mm) for these tests. In evaluation parameter 3, for checking the chloride penetration and carbonation depth, KS F 2584 (columnar specimen size: \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 200 mm) [40] and NT Build 492 (columnar specimen size: \(\O\) 100 \(\times\) 50 mm) [41] were used as the test standardization. In addition, the test for the relative dynamic elasticity modulus and weight loss rate were conducted according to ASTM C666 (cubic specimen size: 100 \(\times\) 100 \(\times\) 400 mm) [42]. For this test, a specimen was prepared and standard curing was performed until the age of 28 days, and then an accelerated carbonization test was performed. At this time, the accelerated carbonation was set under the conditions of 10% CO\({}_{2}\) concentration, 60% \(\pm\) 3% relative humidity, and 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\circ}\)C temperature. The carbonation depth was measured by spraying a 1% phenolphthale solution at the age of 4 and 8 weeks.