## 1 Introduction
According to [PERSON] [23], the type and proportion of SCM has greater influence on the compressive strength than the water/filler ratio (cement + SCMs). [PERSON] et al. [20], reported the rise in compressive strength by increasing the limestone filler content, keeping the effective water/cement ratio and the amount of cement. The use of SCC brings with it a series of advantages with respect to the conventional one such as better adhesion between the paste and the aggregates or the uniform distribution of the stresses during load applications [19], even having the same w/c ratio [24; 25]. Some studies claim that indirect tensile strength is higher in SCC [25] due to its packed structure, other studies argue that there are no differences because this property does not depend on the paste content [23; 24] and other studies argue that this greater paste content affects negatively [20]. Tensile splitting strength of SCC and conventional concrete with the same amount of cement and water/cement ratio is directly influenced by the type of aggregate used [19] and elastic modulus in SCC is lower because it has a lower proportion of coarse aggregate [21], and for the same compressive strength the SCC presents a bigger strain [19]. The stiffness of SCC can be 40% lower but in high strength concrete (the concrete considered in this study) the difference is reduced to 5%. The mechanical properties of concretes with EAFS are superior to those obtained with conventional aggregate concretes [26; 27], mainly due to an improvement in the bond with the cement paste owing to the quality of the paste-aggregate interfacial transition zone (ITZ), which can be observed by means of a scanning microscope [23; 28]. Experimentally, it has been found that the coarse fraction of EAFS contributes to the increase in compressive strength, tensile splitting strength, and elastic modulus. Similarly, the total substitution of fine aggregate leads to a reduction in compressive strength [29]. In terms of durability, concrete with EAFS is more vulnerable to frost and freeze-thaw cycles [30]. The use of EAFS in SCC is a challenge and very few studies have been done to date, mainly due to a decrease in flowability, also due to intergranular friction and a slight increase in density,although it has been possible to obtain stronger concretes than conventional ones [31], always using a significant amount of superplasticizer additive. Recently, [PERSON] et al. [32; 33] have demonstrated the feasibility of manufacturing SCC using EAFS as both coarse and fine, obtaining consistency classes of S4 and SF2 and reasonably good mechanical properties. Likewise, [PERSON] [34] advises not to use replacements greater than 50% of EAFS so as not to negatively affect the properties in the fresh state, mainly density, air content, and stability. With regard to these studies and broadly speaking, in this paper new concrete mixes are developed through the use of two different wastes, to obtain high-performance concrete. Analyzing in detail the specific differences with the works found in the literature, this paper presents these main novelties:  
* The EAFS aggregate has not been separated by screening operations for mixing (only 2 fraction ranges have been used: 0/6 and 6/12). * Two wastes from two different industrial processes are used in this research, both of the oxidation or reduction stages. * The developed concrete mixes seek to obtain very high strength concrete without damaging the properties in the fresh state. * A total replacement of the natural coarse and a partial replacement of the natural fines have been made. * A comparison with a control concrete with high quality aggregates (diabase) has been made. * It has been possible to value a new waste that would otherwise end up in landfills (cupola slag).