Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Influence of different types of fibers on the mechanical properties of

recycled waste aggregate concrete
Md. Jahidul Islam a, Kamrul Islam a, b, *, Md. Shahjalal a, Ehsani Khatun a, Somaiya Islam a,
Anika Binte Razzaque a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
b
Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Polytechnique Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Substantial volumes of concrete waste are generated daily from construction and demolition activities, which,
Recycled crushed stone aggregate from an environmental standpoint, have become a global concern. Recycled crushed stone aggregate (RA)
Galvanized iron fiber generated as a byproduct of construction and demolition waste can be used to replace natural crushed stone
Polypropylene fiber
aggregate (NA). Although RA degrades various mechanical properties of concrete, incorporating fiber into the
Compressive strength
concrete mixtures may improve them. Thus, the present study investigates the influence of different fibers, such
Tensile strength
Flexural strength as galvanized iron (GI) fiber and polypropylene (PP) fiber, on the physical and mechanical properties of natural
Toughness aggregate concrete (NAC) and recycled aggregate concrete (RAC). The GI fiber having 0.51 mm diameter with
three different lengths, such as 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm, and PP fiber having 0.03 mm diameter with 12 mm
length were used at 0.5% by the volume of the total concrete mixture. The short and long-term compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength of fiber-based NAC and RAC were evaluated. Results
revealed that the effect of GI fiber was more significant in compressive strength than that of PP fiber. Concrete
with 15 mm long GI fiber showed the highest compressive and split tensile strengths than the other GI fiber
reinforced concrete (GFRC). Approximately 42% and 13% higher split tensile strength was observed from NAC
and RAC with 15 mm GI fiber. The GI fiber tended to arrest the crack formations in concrete better than PP fiber
reinforced concrete. Moreover, incorporating GI fiber increased the flexural strength and toughness of the
concrete compared to PP fiber. The cost sensitivity analysis revealed that approximately 18.8% of energy costs
could be saved by replacing natural stone with recycled stone in GFRC. Finally, it is recommended to use 15 mm
long GI fiber with an aspect ratio of 30 both in NAC and RAC.

1. Introduction creating a significant environmental load. Various researchers used this

Concrete for centuries has been the most widely used material for
civil construction around the world. It is preferred for its good perfor­
mance in compression, superior durability characteristics, extended life,
and relatively low maintenance cost [1]. With the world’s increasing
population, infrastructure development is also increased parallelly.
Thus, construction industries are facing a tremendous shortage of nat­
ural aggregates. Researchers are searching for an alternative solution to
natural aggregate. Recycled aggregate from demolished concrete can be
a viable alternative to natural aggregate. Each year, 2.2 billion tons of
construction waste is generated worldwide, and this figure is expected to
double by 2025 [2]. These wastes are generally dumped in landfills,
concrete waste as recycled aggregate for producing cost-effective, eco-
friendly concrete [3–14]. The acceptability of recycled crushed stone
aggregate (RA) is approved by the ACI Committee 555 [15] and Cana­
dian Standard [16], and their specifications are also included in the
ASTM C33 [17]. Besides, Brito and Robles [18] proposed some meth­
odology for estimating different long-term properties of recycled
aggregate concrete (RAC).
Silva et al. [19] have classified construction and demolished wastes
into three types: crushed concrete, crushed masonry, and mixed demo­
lition debris. Matias et al. [20] investigated the effect of different
crushing processes on aggregate properties. It was found that the
crushing process played a significant role in the aggregates’ shape index

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: mjislam@ce.mist.ac.bd (Md.J. Islam), kamrul1@ualberta.ca (K. Islam), shahjalal@ce.mist.ac.bd (Md. Shahjalal), sonyehsani@yahoo.com
(E. Khatun), somaiya.islam786@gmail.com (S. Islam), anika.nr2@gmail.com (A.B. Razzaque).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127577
Received 27 January 2022; Received in revised form 12 April 2022; Accepted 16 April 2022
Available online 3 May 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Md.J. Islam et al.
and subsequently on the concrete’s performance. For instance, using the
same crushing method, RA particles became more rounder shape than
the natural crushed stone aggregate (NA) and exhibited better perfor­
mance compared to angular/elongated particles. The RA had adhered
mortar attached to its surface, which increased the surface roughness
and weakened the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between the RA and
cement paste, and reduced the compressive strength of concrete
[21–23]. Hossain et al. [6] found that a small percentage of RA (10%)
increased the compressive strength due to the better internal curing
provided by the higher amount of absorbed water by RA, which reduced
the water-cement ratio at ITZ. But when the RA percentage was higher
(30%), the strength decreased due to producing a higher amount of
porosity in the system. Besides, RA provided a higher water absorption
capacity than NA [3,6]. The contaminants and the attached mortar of RA
are mainly responsible for reducing the strength and increasing water
absorption of RA particles [21–24]. Thus the workability is reduced after
incorporating RA into the concrete mixture [6,7].
However, some researchers observed similar or enhanced mechani­
cal and durability properties of RAC compared to natural aggregate
concrete (NAC) in terms of compressive strength [25–28], splitting
tensile strength, flexural strength, [29,30], water sorptivity, drying
shrinkage, and chloride-ion permeability [29]. Huda and Alam [31]
found no significant difference in modulus of elasticity (MoE) and
Poisson’s ratio of RAC up to 50% replacement level of RA. Zhou and
Chen [30] also found that the Poisson’s ratio of RAC was comparable to
or even a little higher than NAC. Alam et al. [7] observed that the
compressive strength containing 25–50% RA was close to the control
mix. Besides, Limbachiya et al. [32] found that the optimum content of
RA was up to 30%. Some standards allow 100% RA replacement to make
up to 60 MPa concrete [33,34], and some standards permit the pro­
duction of only 10 MPa concrete by using 100% RA [35]. Due to this
uncertainty of RAC strength, Choi and Yun [27] recommended using RA,
where the required design strength of concrete is less than 27 MPa. Xiao
et al. [26] suggested taking special consideration during the construc­
tion phase and maintaining a proper mix design for recycled concrete.
Thus, the mechanical properties of RAC are highly affected by the
properties of RA, replacement level of RA, or suitable mix design of
concrete. However, the main problem with concrete is that it’s a brittle
material and RAC exhibited lower ductility compared to NAC [5,6].
Researchers try to improve its ductility and toughness by adding
different substitutes into the concrete mixture. Therefore, improving the
mechanical properties of RAC is still an active area of research.
Fiber-reinforced concrete is a relatively new material gaining
popularity due to its ability to overcome some of the challenges asso­
ciated with the brittle nature of conventional concrete, such as ductility,
toughness, impact resistance, and energy absorption capacity [4,5,36].
Besides, the inclusion of fiber improves both the mechanical and dura­
bility properties such as flexural strength, compressive strength, tensile
strength, and creep behavior of concrete [37–40]. Besides, fibers are
used to control the propagation of cracks in concrete, resulting in
improved structural integrity and ductility [5,6]. Different types of fi­
bers are used in construction, such as steel fiber, synthetic fiber (PP
fiber, nylon fiber, carbon fiber, asbestos fiber, etc.), glass and ceramic
fiber, and natural fibers [36]. However, among all fibers, steel fiber is
mainly used. Steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) can spread localized
stresses, produce strong and permanent surfaces in the concrete mixture,
reduce crack propagation, increase impact resistance, and freezing and
thawing resistance [1]. Besides, previous research confirmed that steel
fiber-enhanced concrete’s tensile strength, ductility, toughness, and fa­
tigue life [41–47].
Conventional concrete is weak in tension and, as mentioned above,
exhibits brittle behavior. However, steel fibers within SFRC allow for a
high level of stress redistribution, helping the structure deform signifi­
cantly between crack initiation and failure. [48]. In general, SFRC has
higher strength and MoE compared to conventional concrete. Further­
more, steel fibers with surface roughness contribute to a stronger
2
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
mechanical bond with the cement matrix. According to ACI 544.1R [41],
steel fiber used in concrete should have an aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio of
length to diameter) ranging from about 20 to 100 and a length dimen­
sion ranging from 6.4 mm to 76 mm. In addition to the properties
mentioned above, SFRC offers a high strain capacity, enhanced tensile
strength, and high impact resistance. However, these improvements
depend on the fiber type and quantity. Furthermore, the properties will
not necessarily increase at a uniform rate as fibers are added [49]. For
instance, Zheng et al. [50] found improved mechanical properties of
SFRC when the fiber content increased within the concrete mix, but the
rate of increase was higher when the fiber content was less than 1%. In
another study, Balendran et al. [47] reported that using a 1 percent fiber
content by volume did not significantly affect the compressive strength
of SFRC. Nonetheless, the split tensile strength and rupture modulus
were improved. In a recent study, Lee et al. [51]investigated the flexural
performance of ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete beams
under static and impact loads experimentally. Their findings indicated
that the addition of fiber improved impact and static load resistance as
well as energy dissipation capacity. During the initial loading stages, the
fibers bridged cracks and minimized crack propagation, thus increasing
the strength of concrete. As the loading was continued, the fibers
increased toughness and apparent strength by distributing the micro-
cracks [38].
Meanwhile, fibers affect fresh concrete properties, such as work­
ability and air void. For instance, fiber content inversely affected the
workability of concrete [52]. Guerini et al. [53] observed that steel fiber
had a more adverse effect on workability than PP fiber. Even though
there have been few studies on the air void of SFRC, steel fiber content
showed a slight increase in the air void of SFRC [53]. Uygunoglu [52]
reported that the unit weight of SFRC decreased as fiber content and
length increased, as high fiber content and long fiber hampered fiber
distribution and high air void in concrete.
PP fiber is mainly used in concrete to improve toughness, ductility,
and energy absorption capacity by bridging phenomena [4–6,54,55].
Alhozaimy et al. [56] noted that, while PP fiber had only a negligible
effect on the compressive and flexural strength, it improved the tough­
ness, first crack resistance, and impact resistance of concrete. Maza­
heripour et al. [57] studied the effect of PP fiber on the fresh and
hardened properties of lightweight self-compacting concrete and found
that adding PP fiber to concrete reduced the slump values by up to 40%.
They also found that, though PP fiber did not influence the compressive
strength, it increased tensile and flexural strength.
Many previous studies observed that steel fiber is the most
commonly used fiber in concrete (followed by synthetic and other fibers)
due to its capacity to improve the concrete’s properties [41–47]. How­
ever, in developing countries, steel fiber is costly and not locally avail­
able, and as such, it has not been widely used. Galvanized iron (GI) wire
is a locally available straight wire with a relatively low cost compared to
the conventional steel fiber that can serve as a promising alternative
[58,59]. Almost 14% and 19% of costs can be saved using 1% and 2.5%
GI fiber compared to steel fiber [58,59]. Emon et al. [59] experimentally
investigated the performance of reinforced concrete beams made with
brick chips as aggregate and GI fiber. Approximately 30% compressive
strength was increased with GI fiber, whereas the splitting tensile
strength was increased by 45%. Besides, the flexural properties were
improved by 15–30% with GI fibers. Their results stated that 2–2.5%
fiber content by weight of concrete was optimum for concrete beams
made with brick chips as coarse aggregates. Another study by Emon
et al. [58] found approximately 39% higher first-crack load for 2.5% GI
fiber concrete than control concrete. Furthermore, GI fiber improved the
ductility and energy absorption capacity of concrete. The influence of
different types of fibers on the mechanical and durability properties of
RAC was investigated by Meesala [60], Gao et al. [61], and Zhang et al.
[62]. Meesala [60] reported that steel fiber exhibited higher compres­
sive strength, split tensile strength, and flexural strength, among other
fiber types such as woolen fiber and Glass fiber. Gao et al. [61] also
Md.J. Islam et al.
observed an increasing trend of compressive strength with the inclusion
of steel fiber, while the influence of PP fiber on the compressive strength
was found insignificant. Besides, the improvement of split tensile
strength was more pronounced with steel fiber than with PP fiber.
However, no study has been conducted on the GI fiber as an alternative
to steel fiber compared to PP fiber with recycled aggregate. Thus, the
present study investigates the short and long-term mechanical proper­
ties of GI fiber-reinforced RAC and NAC and compares them with PP
fiber-reinforced RAC and NAC. The paper is organized as follows. Sec­
tion 2 highlights the significance of the current study. The subsequent
sections provide a description of constituent materials, mix proportions,
and test procedures. Section 5 presents the results of the physical and
mechanical properties of GI and PP fiber-reinforced concrete specimens
and failure patterns, followed by cost analyses. Finally, conclusions are
drawn by outlining the key findings in Section 6. A detailed overview of
the operational procedure is presented in Fig. 1.
2. Research significance
The main problem with concrete is that it is weak in tension and
provides brittle failure and lower ductility. Many attempts have been
made to enhance the mechanical properties of concrete, particularly
tensile strength, ductility, and toughness. Besides, previous studies
clarified that the RAC exhibited similar or inferior properties to NAC.
However, past research suggests limiting the use of RA by up to 30%.
The present study attempts to use 100% RA and compare them with NAC
using different types of fiber, such as GI fiber and PP fiber, for enhancing
the mechanical properties of RAC. The main objective of this study is to
investigate the effectiveness of GI fiber-reinforced RAC and compare it
with PP fiber-reinforced concrete. Due to the unavailability and higher
cost of steel fiber in developing countries, GI fiber can be used as a
promising alternative to steel fiber. Besides, GI fiber is not widely used in
Fig. 1. Flowchart containing operational procedure.
Table 1
Chemical composition of cement.
Chemical Compositions SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO
% 20.46 4.83 3.45 62.88
Specific Limit (%), max – 6.0 6.0 – 6.0
3
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
the concrete industry. To the authors’ best knowledge, no research
works have been carried out investigating the performance of GI fiber-
reinforced RAC and the effect of GI fiber length on NAC and RAC
properties. Therefore, the present study investigates the physical and
mechanical properties of GI and PP fiber-reinforced concrete and com­
pares the results with the existing design guidelines developed for
conventional concrete materials. This research will be critical to
achieving sustainable fiber-reinforced RAC and hastening its broad
construction application.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Cement
For this study, local brand cement conforms with BDS EN
197–1:2010 CEM I, 52.5 N equivalent to ASTM Type I Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) [63] was chosen as the binding material for concrete. A
Chemical test of cement was conducted following ASTM C114-18 [64],
and the chemical composition results are presented in Table 1. As
observed from the table, percentages of aluminum oxide, ferric oxide,
magnesium oxide, sulfur trioxide, insoluble residue, and loss on ignition
are well within the limit specified in ASTM C150-20 [63]. Table 2 shows
the phase composition of cement mortar paste in percentage as calcu­
lated from the oxide composition as per the guideline proposed by ASTM
C150-20 [63]. Various physical properties of cement were determined
following ASTM standards, such as normal consistency (29%) following
ASTM C187-16 [65], specific gravity (3.12) following ASTM C188-17
[66], and fineness (330 m2/kg) by air permeability method [67]. The
compressive strength of cement mortar cubic was tested following ASTM
C109-20[68], and compressive strength of 33.5 MPa and 48.3 MPa were
found at 7 and 28 days, respectively. All the test results had achieved the
minimum or maximum value specified by the ASTM C150-20 [63].
MgO SO3 IR LOI Na2O K2O
2.02 2.52 0.44 1.89 0.21 0.48
3.0 0.75 3.0 – –
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Table 2
Phase composition of cement.
Chemical Compositions Tricalcium silicate (C3S) Dicalcium silicate (C2S) Tricalcium aluminate (C3A) Tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF) C3S + 4.75(C3A)

% 56 16 7 10 89
Max. Specific Limit (%) – – 8 – 100

Fig. 2. Pictures of aggregates: (a) natural aggregate (NA), (b) recycled aggregate (RA), and (c) river sand.

Fig. 3. Aggregate gradation with ASTM lower and upper limits: (a) coarse aggregate (natural and recycled), and (b) fine aggregate (sand).

3.2. Aggregate Table 3

Properties of coarse (crushed stone and recycled aggregate) and fine aggregate.
For this study, three aggregates were used: natural crushed stone Properties NA RA Sand
aggregate (NA), recycled crushed stone aggregate (RA), and river sand. 3
Unit Wt (kg/m ) 1550 1430 1760
Natural crushed stone and sand were collected from the local market. OD Bulk Sp. Gravity 2.84 2.59 2.58
Based on the petrographic analysis, it was found that the stone was a SSD Bulk Sp. Gravity 2.86 2.76 2.61
basalt-type igneous rock [69]. The RA was collected from old concrete Apparent Sp. Gravity 2.90 3.11 2.66
blocks produced five to six years before the sample preparation for Absorption (%) 0.70 6.38 1.2
Fineness Modulus 6.85 6.85 2.71
riverbank protection. However, these samples were not used for river­
bank protection; instead, they were kept for testing purposes. These
samples were first crushed into smaller pieces using a concrete breaker The maximum fine aggregate (sand) size used in this study was 4.75.
machine. These smaller pieces were then further crushed using a jaw Sieve analysis of sand was performed according to ASTM C136-19 [72],
crusher. Crushed recycled stones were washed using water to remove and the fineness modulus of 2.71 was obtained, which was slightly on
the attached fine particles. NA, RA, and sand are shown in Fig. 2. the coarser side. The gradation curve of sand is presented in Fig. 3(b),
The gradation of the coarse aggregate was kept the same for the and the plot indicates that the gradation of the sand is well within the
present study. The maximum aggregate size and fineness modulus of upper and lower limits, as reported in ASTM C33-18 [17]. Specific
coarse aggregate was 19 mm and 6.85, respectively. Aggregates of gravity, absorption capacity, and unit weight of sand, as shown in
different sizes were mixed following the gradation curve shown in Fig. 3 Table 3, were determined according to ASTM standards [70,73].
(a). Unit weight, specific gravity, and absorption capacity of the NA and
RA were measured following the ASTM standards [70,71]. Test results 3.3. Fibers
are shown in Table 3. The results showed that NA had a higher unit
weight and specific gravity than RA. However, RA showed almost nine In this study, two types of fibers were used: galvanized iron (GI) and
times higher water absorption capacity than the NA. Huda and Alam [3] polypropylene (PP) (Fig. 4). GI fiber is made by cutting a sizeable
also found that the absorption capacity of RA varies from 5.2% to 9.4%, straight GI wire into the desired size. It is most commonly found in round
depending on the age of recycled concrete. shapes with varying diameters. GI fiber comes in a variety of diameters.

4
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Fig. 4. Pictures of fibers: (a) galvanized iron (GI): diameter = 0.51 mm; length = 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm), and (b) polypropylene (PP).

Table 4 diameter and 12 mm long PP fiber was purchased from the manufac­
Properties of fibers. turer. Tensile strength (fu) and MoE test results were supplied by the
Types Dia (mm) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) MoE (GPa) Elongation (%) manufacturer and presented in Table 4. The test results show that PP
fiber has higher ultimate tensile strength than GI fiber. However, GI
GI 0.51 214 315 17.5 18
PP 0.03 – 480 7.0 – fiber has a higher MoE compared to PP fiber.

4. Test procedure

4.1. Mixture proportions

In this study, the concrete mix was performed following ACI 544.3R-
08 [74], the guideline for mix design for SFRC. A total of ten concrete
mixtures were prepared for this study. Among them, five were 100% NA,
and five were 100% RA. Each set included one control mix without fiber,
three combinations with GI fiber, and one mix with PP fiber. A constant
water-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.40 was used for all mixes. The previous
studies found that fiber content of 0.5% by volume yielded the optimum
results [5,59,75,76]. Thus, the fiber was added to 0.5% of the total
concrete mixture.
To evaluate the effects of fiber length, GI fiber with 0.51 mm
diameter and varying sizes, such as 15 mm (aspect ratio (A/R) = 30), 26
mm (A/R = 50), and 36 mm (A/R = 70), were adopted for this exper­
imental study. The fifth concrete combination in each batch contained
Fig. 5. Stress–strain diagram of galvanized iron (GI) fiber subjected to a uni­
12 mm long PP fiber. A high-performance superplasticizer was used in
axial tensile test.
the concrete mix as an admixture. Table 5 presents the weight of the
ingredients for 1 m3 of concrete.
However, the current study used only 0.51 mm diameter GI fiber in three
different lengths: 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm. The tensile strength of GI
4.2. Sample preparations
fiber was tested using a universal testing machine with a capacity of 100
kN. Table 4 displays the test results, while Fig. 5 depicts the stress–strain
As the absorption capacity of RA was much higher than that of NA,
diagram of GI fiber during the tensile test. PP fiber is a synthetic fiber
all the aggregates were prepared in SSD (Saturated Surface Dry) con­
made up of 85 percent propylene. It outperforms other synthetic fibers
dition before casting. The fibers were thoroughly mixed with the
in terms of elasticity and resiliency. Although it has high tensile
designed cement content by hand for a uniform distribution of fiber into
strength, its MoE is comparatively lower. For the present study, 0.03 mm
the concrete mixture. A mixture machine was used to mix the concrete

Table 5
Mix proportion for 1 m3 of concrete.
Designation 1 Water (kg) Cement (kg) Sand (kg) NA RA (kg) Admixture (kg) Fiber (kg)
(kg) GI PP

NG0P0 148 370 589 1296 – 4 – –

NG5L15 148 370 589 1296 – 4 39 –
NG5L26 148 370 589 1296 – 4 39 –
NG5L36 148 370 589 1296 – 4 39 –
NG0P5 148 370 589 1296 – 4 – 5
RG0P0 148 370 589 – 1251 4 – –
RG5L15 148 370 589 – 1251 4 39 –
RG5L26 148 370 589 – 1251 4 39 –
RG5L36 148 370 589 – 1251 4 39 –
RG0P5 148 370 589 – 1251 4 – 5
1
(N/R)GX(LY)/(PZ): N = natural crushed stone aggregate; R = recycled crushed stone aggregate; GX = GI fiber of X%; LY = GI fiber length in Y mm; PZ = PP fiber in
Z%.

5
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Fig. 6. Test setups for (a) compression test and stress–strain behavior, and (b) flexural test of the beam.

ingredients. The slump and air void tests were performed on freshly
mixed concrete. A total of 270 concrete cylinders with dimensions of
100 mm × 200 mm were prepared to determine the compressive
strength, split tensile strength, and hardened concrete density at 7, 28,
and 56 days. The MoE was determined at 28 days. Furthermore, 30
concrete prism beams measuring 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm were
cast for flexural strength test at 28 days. Three samples were used for
each test, and the average result was reported. In addition, the error bars
in the graphs displayed the standard deviation (SD) of the results. All
concrete specimens were placed in a humid room for 24 h before being
de-molded and placed in a curing tank full of water at a constant tem­
perature of 23 ± 2 ◦ C. Before testing on the specified dates, the cylin­
ders/beams were removed from the curing chamber and dried at room
temperature.

4.3. Test details

The compressive strength of the concrete cylinder was determined

following ASTM C39-21 [77]. A compressometer with two linear strain
conversion transducers (LSCT) is used to record the stress–strain
response under compressive loading. A loading rate of 0.3 kN/s was used
during the compressive test. The ASTM C496-17 [78] and ASTM C642-
13 [79] standard test methods were followed for the split tensile
strength and hardened density calculations. The flexural strength of the
concrete prisms was tested according to ASTM C78-21 [78] and ASTM
C1609-19 [79]. A Universal Testing Machine (UTM) with a capacity of
1000 kN was used to test the concrete prism beams. A data acquisition
system was used to record the load and the corresponding deflection.
Fig. 6 depicts the test setup for assessing the mechanical concrete
properties.
5. Results and discussion
Fresh and hardened properties of fiber-reinforced concrete contain­
ing GI fiber and PP fiber were evaluated through slump test, air void test,
compression test, split tensile test, flexural test, and hardened density
test.
5.1. Workability and air void
Fig. 7 shows the different concrete mixtures’ slump value and air
void. The results show that concrete with no fiber shows the highest
slump and lowest air void in both NAC and RAC combinations. After
incorporating the fiber content, the slump value reduces, reducing with
increasing GI fiber length. Thus, GI fiber with 36 mm length shows the
lowest slump value among all other GI fiber lengths, approximately 40%
and 45.6% of the control mixes with NA and RA, respectively. Due to the
longer size and higher hardness of this type of fiber can form a skeleton
frame into the concrete mixture, which narrows the slippage between
aggregates, thus resulting in a lower slump value [61]. Emon et al. [58]
Fig. 7. Slump value and air void of natural and recycled aggregate concrete
with various types of fibers.
also found that GI fiber was responsible for reducing the workability and
even producing zero slump value for a higher content of GI fiber.
However, concrete with PP fiber has the lowest slump value among the
four types of concrete. Up to 91.2% reduction of slump, value is
observed in the RAC mixture. This reduction in workability can be
significantly attributed to the apparent dryness imparted by PP fiber.
Moreover, PP fiber creates higher interlocking between aggregates
which reduces the workability [4,6]. As the number of PP fiber imparted
into the concrete mixture is comparatively higher, it requires more
cement to cover a large surface area resulting in lower workability. The
reduction of slump value for fiber content is consistent with previous
studies [5,6,36,60,62]. Comparing NAC and RAC combinations, the RAC
shows a lower slump value due to RA’s higher absorption capacity and
surface roughness, which absorb much water from the concrete mixture,
reducing workability [6,60].
In terms of air void, air void shows increased value with fiber con­
tent, and it increases with increased fiber length. GI fiber with 15 mm,
26 mm, and 36 mm lengths offer 2.67, 2.75, and 2.83 times higher air
void with NA and 1.06, 1.12, and 1.24 times higher air void with RA
than control mixes. Moreover, more extended GI fiber content concrete
has a higher air void as longer fibers do not disperse well in the concrete
mix and leave some extra voids. Besides, the longer GI fibers form a
skeleton frame in the concrete mixture, creating a higher air void in the
fresh concrete mix. Concrete with PP fiber shows the lowest air void
among all fiber-reinforced concrete due to creating a higher cohesive
force and strong interlocking between aggregates which reduces the air

6
Md.J. Islam et al.
Fig. 8. Compressive strength of concrete with various fiber and fiber lengths at different ages.
void in the concrete mixture [5]. The RAC combinations show higher air
void than NAC combinations due to the attached mortar on the surface
of RA, which creates extra air bubbles in the mixture. This trend is
consistent with Hossain et al. [6].
5.2. Compressive strength
The results of the compressive strength of NAC and RAC with and
without fiber are presented in Fig. 8. The figure shows that the inclusion
of GI fiber increases the compressive strength of concrete up to 24.7%
and 16.3% for NAC and RAC combinations, respectively, at 56 days. On
the other hand, approximately 26.9% and 20% compressive strength
reduction is observed for NA and RA with PP fiber compared to concrete
without fiber at 56 days. The effect of GI fiber is more significant in
compressive strength than that of PP fiber. The lower MoE of PP fiber is
mainly responsible for reducing the compressive strength. Furthermore,
the MoE of GI fiber is almost 2.5 times greater than PP fiber. Besides, the
GI fiber is comparatively stiffer than PP fiber which can create strong
bridging and resist crack propagation in GI fiber reinforced concrete
(GFRC) and thus exhibits a higher compressive strength. Emon et al.
[59] got approximately 30% higher compressive strength with GI fiber.
At seven days, NAC with GI fiber having different lengths achieves 53%
to 60% of 56 days’ compressive strength, whereas RAC with different GI
fiber lengths achieves 63% to 69% of the 56 days’ compressive strength.
The bond between the GI fiber and cement mortar matrix is weak at an
early age for remaining a higher air void for GI fiber. Therefore, GI fiber
does not provide significant strength gain at an early age. On the con­
trary, concrete containing PP fiber gains comparatively higher strength
at an early age than GI fiber combinations. This is due to the lower air
void in the concrete mixture, for which a lower water content remains at
ITZ. However, at 28 days with considerable cement hydration, ITZ be­
comes stronger with lower water content and provides up to 86% and
93% of 56 days’ strength for NA and RA with GI fiber, respectively.
GI fiber exhibits better compressive strength than that of control
specimens. The improvement in strength is due to the reduction in the
formation and development of micro-cracks for distributing compara­
tively stiffer fibers randomly into the concrete mixture. These randomly
oriented GI fibers can control the crack propagation and reduce the
width of cracks. The cracks will initiate and start to propagate with
increasing the axial load. When the cracks reach the cement matrix-fiber
interfaces, the GI fibers take additional stress, and the further
7
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
propagation of cracks is resisted [60]. Zhang et al. [62] also reported
that plastic shrinkage cracks could be significantly reduced by incor­
porating an appropriate percentage of fibers into the concrete matrix.
Besides, the higher hardness and the higher cohesive force of GI fiber
create a strong network skeleton inside the concrete. However, PP fiber
has a negative impact on compressive strength. This may happen due to
the lower MoE of PP fiber. Though all the GFRC exhibits higher
compressive strength than controls, 15 mm long GI fiber shows higher
compressive strength than the other GI fiber lengths. For concrete with a
GI fiber length of 36 mm, strength is lower than the other fiber lengths. It
may be due to a higher void in concrete by improper compaction for
large fiber length. However, fiber length does not play a significant role
in compressive strength. Comparing NAC and RAC combinations, the
RAC exhibits better performance in compression. This could be attrib­
uted to RA’s increased volume of absorbed water (9 times higher),
providing better internal curing, lowering the water-cement ratio at ITZ,
and boosting strength [6]. Zhang et al. [62] reported that due to weak
links in RAC, many cracks could be observed, which can be limited by
using fiber. Besides, the fibers can cross both sides of the cracks and
provide better bonding characteristics at the cracking interfaces.
5.3. Stress–strain behavior
The stress–strain behavior of NAC and RAC cylinders under
compression for various fiber and fiber lengths is presented in Fig. 9. All
the concrete cylinders show a similar pattern of the stress–strain curves.
All the curves are divided into four stages: elastic stage, elastic–plastic
stage, yield stage, and fracture stage. A significant difference is observed
among three different GI fiber lengths and between GI fiber and PP fiber
in strain capacity. Though the PP fiber-reinforced concrete (PFRC) ex­
hibits lower peak stress, the strain corresponding to that point is higher
than GFRC, 0.002873 and 0.002997 for NA and RA, respectively. In
terms of fracture strain, a similar trend is also observed. Almost 111%
higher ductility is exhibited for a concrete specimen containing PP fiber
than the concrete mix without any fiber. Some micro crack is pointed out
in the concrete cylinders containing PP fiber. No macro crack is visu­
alized on the surface of the PFRC. As no aggregate spalling has occurred
in the PFRC, it can take extra strain before fracture by providing a
ductile behavior. Besides, the lower MoE of PFRC compared to GFRC is
another reason for this higher strain value (Table 6). In NAC combina­
tions with GI fiber, the strain value decreases with increasing the GI fiber
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Fig. 9. Stress–strain behavior of concrete under compression for various fiber and fiber lengths at 28 days.

Table 6
Mechanical properties of concrete.
Designation Maximum Strain Corresponding Ultimate MoE
Stress (MPa) to Maximum Stress, Strain, (mm/ (MPa)
(mm/mm × 10-3) mm × 10-3)

NG0P0 31.01 2.436 2.872 24,489

NG5L15 47.30 2.872 3.902 28,160
NG5L26 48.14 2.663 2.851 24,060
NG5L36 41.71 1.970 2.198 25,657
NG0P5 25.34 2.873 3.620 19,628
RG0P0 31.84 1.575 2.398 31,496
RG5L15 37.58 2.227 3.537 32,454
RG5L26 40.34 1.720 1.927 28,403
RG5L36 43.23 2.193 3.448 31,298
Fig. 10. Modulus of elasticity of concrete for various fiber and fiber lengths at
RG0P5 32.84 2.997 4.355 23,050 28 days.

in MoE compared to concrete without fiber. This may be attributed to

length. The strain values corresponding to peak stress are 0.002872,
0.002663, and 0.001970 for 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI fiber length.
The same trend is also observed for fracture strain. On the contrary, a
slight variation in RAC combinations with GI fiber is observed. For 36
mm GI fiber, the strain value increases instead of decreases compared to
15 mm and 26 mm GI fiber. GI fiber with a higher length in RAC is more
effective in preventing crack propagation without spalling the aggre­
gates and provides a higher strain value than others. Zhang et al. [62]
reported that the long fibers could cross both sides of RAC cracks and
create a strong bridging between the cracking interfaces. Overall, con­
crete containing fibers shows higher ductility than concrete without
fiber. Fiber delays the first crack formation across the crack and retards
visible cracking.
5.4. Modulus of elasticity (MoE)
The MoE of NAC and RAC for various fiber and fiber lengths at 28
days is presented in Fig. 10. Test results indicate that the MoE of GFRC
increases for 15 mm GI fiber length and then starts to decrease for 26
mm GI fiber length. After that, the GI fiber of 36 mm in length can
further increase the MoE. However, results of MoE do not present sig­
nificant variation in concrete with GI fiber and without GI fiber. Like
compressive strength, concrete with PP fiber demonstrates a sharp drop
the lower MoE of PP fiber (almost 2.5 times lower) compared to GI fiber.
Zhang et al. [62] reported that the PP fiber reduced the MoE due to the
uneven distribution and accumulation of PP fiber into the concrete
mixture, which reduced strength and corresponding MoE. Besides,
comparing NAC and RAC combinations, the RAC combinations provide
a comparatively higher MoE. According to Zhang et al. [62], a higher
strength of concrete generally provides a higher MoE. As the RAC
combinations exhibit better compressive strength, the corresponding
MoE also increases.
The experimental values are compared with different available codes
for regular concrete such as ACI 318–14 [80], CSA A23.3–14 [81], and
fib2010 [82] to investigate their acceptability for fiber-reinforced con­
crete. The MoE mostly depends on the compressive strength and density
of concrete and fiber length. Hence, a regression analysis is carried out
based on the experimental results considering all their effects. Fig. 11
illustrates the experimental values and the predicted values of MoE. The
percentage variation of the proposed equations (Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)) and
codes prediction from the experimental MoE are presented in Fig. 12.
Comparisons with the code indicated values reveal that the available
design equations over predict (theoretical results are greater than
experimental results) the MoE as they do not consider the effect of fiber.
As the proposed equations consider the effect of fiber lengths and con­
crete density, they can predict it more accurately with the R2

8
Md.J. Islam et al.
Fig. 11. Comparisons of experimental Modulus of elasticity of concrete with
the proposed equations and available codes.
(Coefficient of determination) values of 0.997 and 0.998 for NAC and
RAC, respectively.
√̅̅̅̅
(1)
′
Proposed Equation for NAC : ENAC = 4038.6⋅ f c − 76.2FL + 0.67wc
√̅̅̅̅
′
Proposed Equation for RAC : ERAC = 5504.4⋅ f c − 233.3 FL + 0.098 wc
(2)
where E is the MoE in MPa, fc is the compressive strength of concrete
’
in MPa, FL is the fiber length in mm, and wc is the density of concrete
ranging from 2000 kg/m3 to 2500 kg/m3.
5.5. Split tensile strength
The split tensile strength of different concrete mixtures containing GI
fiber and PP fiber with NA and RA is presented in Fig. 13. Overall, it is
observed that concrete having any type of fiber content exhibits better
tensile strength compared to unreinforced fiber concrete. This may
happen due to the superior tensile strength of fibers. The fibers are
distributed randomly into the concrete mixture. The fibers are oriented
in the progressing crack’s perpendicular direction, which can take
Fig. 12. Percentage variation of proposed equations and codes prediction from the experimental MoE.
9
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
tensile stress and help increase the crack arresting capability or bridging
effect in concrete [60]. Besides, fibers can make the concrete more
ductile, and the tensile capacity is generally higher for a ductile material
than that of brittle material. The increasing tensile strength tendency by
incorporating fiber is consistent with the previous studies
[5,6,60,61,83,84]. In the combinations of GFRC, the tensile strength
initially increases for 15 mm GI fiber length and then starts to decrease
slightly for 26 mm and 36 mm GI fiber lengths but is still higher than
that of the control mixtures. Approximately 42%, 38.7%, and 15.6%
tensile strength is increased for 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI fiber with
NA at 28 days. These are increased by 12.7%, 9.7%, and 5.5% for RA
with GI fiber. The same observation is also observed for seven days and
56 days. Emon et al. [59] reported that around 45% splitting tensile
strength was increased due to the incorporation of GI fiber. For concrete
with a GI fiber length of 36 mm, tensile strength is lower than the other
fiber lengths. The probable reason behind this is the higher void in
concrete formed by improper compaction for large fiber lengths. How­
ever, concrete with GI fiber performs better against the tensile force than
PP fiber. In the combinations of PFRC, the tensile strength is almost
equal to or slightly higher than that of control mixtures. Approximately
1.4% and 2.5% tensile strength is increased for PP fiber with NA and RA,
respectively, at 28 days. Hanumesh et al. [83] found approximately
34.84% and 85.6% higher split tensile strength for 100% RA with 1%
and 2% PP fiber, respectively. The same tendency was also observed by
Akça et al. [84]. Compared with NAC and RAC combinations, the RAC
combinations exhibited comparatively lower tensile strength. The
presence of the porous old mortar on the surface of RA attributes to the
lower mechanical resistance and forming a weaker ITZ that is respon­
sible for reducing the tensile strength of RAC [60].
Based on the experimental results, a regression analysis has been
carried out to predict the split tensile strength and compared them with
the available design equations such as ACI 318–14 [80], EC2 [85], and
fib2010 [82] shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15. Most design equations are
formulated for regular concrete, so they can not accurately predict fiber-
reinforced concrete’s tensile strength. The tensile strength of fiber-
reinforced concrete mostly depends on the fiber length; thus, its effect
is considered in the proposed equations (Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)). The pro­
posed equations can predict the tensile strength of fiber-reinforced
concrete with the R2 value of 0.998 and 1.000 for NAC and RAC,
respectively. The experimental split tensile strength for GFRC by Emon
et al. [59] is compared with the proposed equations presented in Fig. 16.
The proposed equation of RAC underpredicts the split tensile strength,
whereas the equation of NAC overpredicts it. However, the prediction is
within 10% variation. This difference may come due to variation in
coarse aggregate type. Emon et al. [59] worked with brick chips and
stone chips with a fixed length of GI fiber whether the proposed equation
Md.J. Islam et al.
Fig. 13. Split tensile strength of concrete with various fiber and fiber lengths at different ages.
Fig. 14. Comparisons of experimental split tensile strengths of concrete with
the proposed equations and available codes.
is applicable mainly for RCA and NCA with different fiber lengths.
√̅̅̅̅
(3)
′
Proposed Equation for NAC : fst, NAC = 0.508 f c + 0.029FL
√̅̅̅̅
(4)
′
Proposed Equation for RAC : fst, RAC = 0.603 f c − 0.018FL
where fst is the split tensile strength in MPa, fc ’ is the compressive
strength of concrete in MPa, and FL is the fiber length in mm.
5.6. Flexural strength
The flexural strength of NAC and RAC with various fiber and fiber
lengths at 28 days are shown in Fig. 17. Overall, the flexural strength of
all GFRC is higher than that of the control mixtures. Strong resistance of
the tensile stresses is developed in the microstructure of GI fiber-based
10
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
concrete under flexural load due to the higher MoE of GI fiber [60].
On the contrary, PFRC exhibits reduced flexural strength. With the
increment of GI fiber length, the flexural strength of NAC decreases
gradually but is still more significant than the concrete without fiber. For
NAC combinations, the flexural strength of concrete with 15 mm, 26
mm, and 36 mm GI fiber length is increased by 30.9%, 24.2%, and
18.3%, respectively, compared to the control concrete. On the other
hand, a slight variation is observed for RAC combinations with GI fiber.
The flexural strength increases gradually for 15 mm, and 26 mm GI fiber
length and then decreases for 36 mm size. However, though the flexural
strength with a GI fiber length of 36 mm strength is lower than the other
fiber lengths for NAC and RAC, they are still higher than that of the
control mixture. The formation of a higher air void in concrete by
improper compaction for large fiber length is responsible for reducing
this flexural strength for 36 mm GI fiber length. The PFRC exhibits
approximately 13.7% and 17% lower flexural strength than controls.
Thus, the strength improvement is more notable with GI fiber than with
PP fiber. Ahmed et al. [14] found that when the PP fiber was limited to
0.6% in RAC, the flexural strength increased but decreased when the PP
fiber content increased from 0.6% to 0.9%. Emon et al. [59] reported
that the flexural properties were improved by 15–30% with GI fibers at
different percentage levels.
The regression analysis has been performed to determine the flexural
strength of fiber-reinforced concrete, considering the effects of
compressive strength and fiber length as proposed in Eq. (5) and Eq. (6).
A good correlation is found between the experimental and the predicted
values. The coefficients of determination (R2) are 0.999 and 0.996 for
NAC and RAC, respectively. Besides, the experimental results are
compared with the available design equations such as ACI 318–14 [80],
CSA A23.3–14 [81], and fib2010 [82], shown in Fig. 18 and Fig. 19.
√̅̅̅̅
(5)
′
Proposed Equation for NAC : fr,NAC = 0.846 f c + 0.0045FL
√̅̅̅̅
Proposed Equation for RAC : fr,RAC = 0.704
′
f c − 0.0066FL (6)
where fr is the flexural strength or modulus of rupture in MPa, fc ’ is
the compressive strength of concrete in MPa, and FL is the fiber length in
mm.
5.7. Toughness
Fig. 20 illustrates the load–deflection curves of NAC and RAC with
Md.J. Islam et al.
Fig. 15. Percentage variation of proposed equations and codes prediction from the experimental split tensile strength results.
Fig. 16. Comparison of experimental split tensile strength results of Emon et al.
[59] with the proposed equation.
various fiber and fiber lengths at 28 days. All the curves have similar
patterns. Each curve is divided into four different stages. The first stage
is initialized from the starting point of loading and ends at the point
where the slope of the curve first starts to change. At this point, the first
crack generates. The load–deflection curve seems linear in this stage,
representing the uncracked beam. After increasing the load, the curve
linearly goes upward up to the peak point. After that, the beam carries
no additional load, and a sharp descending segment is observed. In the
final stage, the curve with fiber takes additional deflection without
further load, representing the ductile phenomena of fiber-reinforced
concrete. Previous studies also found that fibers could control the
propagation of cracks in concrete, resulting in improved structural
integrity and ductility [5,6]. Concrete without any fiber failed like a
brittle material. The deflection corresponding to maximum load is
0.921 mm, 0.802 mm, and 0.825 mm for 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI
fiber length, respectively, for NAC combinations. These are 0.859 mm,
0.991 mm, and 1.057 mm for RAC combinations. No significant varia­
tion is observed within the GI fiber lengths. Concrete containing PP fiber
exhibits 0.699 mm and 0.758 mm deflection corresponding to ultimate
load for NAC and RAC, comparatively lower than GI fiber. Thus the
deflection capacity of GI fiber is relatively higher than that of PP fiber.
From the load–deflection curves, the toughness value is calculated
for different batches. From Fig. 21, it is seen that all the fiber-reinforced
concrete exhibits a higher toughness value than that of control mixtures
11
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
Fig. 17. Flexural strength of concrete with various fiber and fiber lengths at
28 days.
both for NAC and RAC combinations. Compared with GFRC and PFRC,
GFRC provides a higher toughness value. The toughness value decreases
with increasing the GI fiber length for NAC combinations, which is the
opposite of the RAC combinations but still higher than that of controls.
The toughness value increases by 186%, 146%, and 103% for 15 mm, 26
mm, and 36 mm long GI fiber with NA. For the GI fiber with RA, these
increasing percentages are 88%, 90%, and 116%. On the other hand, the
toughness value increases by 54% and 57% after including PP fiber in
NAC and RAC, respectively. Emon et al. [58] found an increased
ductility and toughness with GI fiber due to the formation of bridging
across the cracks that helped to carry significant stress over a consid­
erable strain even during the post-cracking phase. Approximately 39%
higher first-crack load was found for 2.5% GI fiber concrete than control
concrete. The same observation was also observed by Gao et al. [61].
5.8. Failure pattern
Fig. 22 demonstrates the failure pattern of concrete with or without
GI fiber under compression, tension, and bending loading, respectively.
It is observed that GI fiber tends to better control the formation of cracks
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Fig. 18. Comparisons of experimental flexural strengths of concrete with the Fig. 21. Comparison of the toughness of concrete with various fiber and
proposed equations and available codes. fiber lengths.

Fig. 19. Percentage variation of proposed equations and codes prediction from the experimental flexural strength results.

Fig. 20. Load-deflection curves for (a) NAC and (b) RAC at 28 days.

12
Md.J. Islam et al.
in concrete compared to PP fiber. This may happen due to the higher
compressive strength and MoE of GI fiber than PP fiber. Zhang et al. [62]
reported that the long fibers could cross both sides of RAC cracks and
create a strong bridging between the cracking interfaces. In contrast, the
uneven distribution and accumulation of soft PP fiber into the concrete
mixture has a lower crack resisting capacity than GI fiber. Besides, the
higher hardness and the higher cohesive force of steel fiber create a
strong network skeleton inside the concrete and result in a ductile failure
pattern. However, straight GI fiber has less pull-out strength, and in
most cases, GFRC fails while GI fiber is pulled out of the concrete, and
propagation of cracks continues. On the other hand, some small hair
crack/microcrack is observed in the PFRC without spalling of concrete.
No macro crack is pointed out on the surface of the concrete. The
number of cracks and crack widths is comparatively higher in GFRC than
in PFRC. However, all the fiber reinforced concrete provides ductile
failure mode compared to brittle failure like plain concrete. The fibers
(a)
(b)
Fig. 22. Failure pattern of concrete under (a) compression test, (b) split tensile test, and (c) flexural test.
13
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
are oriented in the perpendicular direction of the progressing crack and
make a strong bridge within the aggregates. Emon et al. [58] observed
that the GFRC samples could bear the additional load with the help of
fibers resisting tensile stress even after reaching the ultimate point. A
shear failure is observed in the concrete containing no fiber, and the
concrete broke suddenly without warning and provided a brittle failure
pattern.
5.9. Hardened concrete density
The hardened concrete density of NAC and RAC with various fiber
and fiber lengths at different ages is shown in Fig. 23. Overall, it is
observed that RAC combinations have a lower density compared to NAC.
This may happen due to the lower specific gravity of RA compared to
NA. The density of GFRC is comparatively higher than that of plain
concrete and PFRC. Approximately 4.4%, 3.3%, and 2.9% are increased
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Fig. 23. Comparison of hardened density of concrete with various fiber and fiber lengths at different ages.

for NAC with 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI fiber length. For RAC to determine the thermal conductivity (λ) of different GFRC mixtures.
combinations, these increasing percentages are 2.5%, 1.3%, and 0.5%, Then the thermal resistance (R) of the roof per m2 is calculated by using
respectively. As the specific gravity of GI fiber is much higher than other Eq. (8) [87].
constituents, and it is added additionally as a percentage of the total
λ = 0.0032wc − 4.7584 (7)
mixture, the GFRC provides a comparatively higher density. Meesala
[60] also observed that the density slightly increased after incorporating L
different fibers, irrespective of the type of concrete. The density slightly R= (8)
λ
decreases with increasing the GI fiber length for NAC and RAC combi­
nations. A higher length of GI fiber produces a higher air void in the where λ is the thermal conductivity in W/m.K, wc is the density of
concrete mixture, thus reducing the density. Similar findings were re­ concrete in kg/m3, R is the thermal resistance in m2.K/W, and L is the
ported by Uygunoglu [52]. However, this reduction is nearly 1% which slab thickness in meter.
is insignificant. The density of all fiber-reinforced concrete varies from The electrical energy cost is calculated to determine the payback
2000 kg/m3 to 2500 kg/m3. period and net present value using Eq. (9) to Eq. (13) adopted from Al-
Osta et al. [87]. The energy consumed by air-conditioning (E) can be
calculated as follows:
5.10. Cost comparison 0.024 × D
E= (9)
R×C
A cost-sensitive analysis is carried out for GI fiber concrete and
compared with steel fiber concrete. The steel fiber concrete data are where E is the energy consumed by air-conditioning in kWh/m2, D is
taken from Nagy et al. [86]. In this comparison with steel fiber, the PP the degree-days (D was taken as 1431 K for the study location of Dhaka
fiber combinations are ignored. The cost and emission rate calculations city of Bangladesh), R is the thermal resistance of concrete in m2.K/W,
are based on a roof slab with a thickness of 10 cm. The main variables in and C is the thermal efficiency coefficient of air-conditioning system (C
cost analysis are NA, RA, GI fiber, and steel fiber. The prices of other = 2.16 adopted from Al-Osta et al. [87]).
materials remain the same in all combinations. Since Nagy et al. [86] did The estimated energy is converted to energy costs (EC) which is
not use any admixture, the cost of admixture is neglected for this com­ estimated as follows:
parison purpose. Besides, RA as waste material is free of charge. Only the EC = ET × E (10)
transportation and preparation cost is considered. The GI fiber is locally
available in Bangladesh, whereas steel fiber needs to import from where ET is the annual electrical energy pricing in $/kWh (1kWh =
abroad. The locally produced GI fiber cost is about US$1.176/kg, and 0.105$ for Bangladesh).
the cost of steel fiber is collected from a dealer costing approximately US The payback period is determined by dividing the increased concrete
$1.90/kg. The cost of steel fiber is almost 1.62 times higher than GI cost by annual energy savings. Finally, the annual cost of 10 cm thick
fiber. Besides, in this south Asian subcontinent, steel fiber is not yet as concrete, including both startup and running expenditures per m2 of a
widely used as GI fiber. A 10% operation cost and 15% profit are roof, is calculated as follows::
considered from the total cost of all ingredients of the control mix. The NPV = PWF × EC + BC (11)
cost analysis for one square meter of roof slab with different batches is
( ( )n )
presented in Table 7. Based on the initial cost and thermal resistance, the 1 1+e
net present value (NPV) identifies the best mix design for all mixtures. PWF = 1− for e ∕
=i (12)
i− e 1+i
The empirical equation (Eq. (7)) proposed by Nagy et al. [86] is adopted

14
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

PWF = n (i + e) for e = i (13)

113.55
36.16

35.71

34.00
0.00
7.68

0.00
0.00
0.00
$
Steel 20
where PWF is the present worth factor, BC is the concrete slab price

135.52
13.18

13.55
8.79
per m2 ($/m2), i = 2.5% (interest rate), e = 2% (energy inflation rate),

All the materials were collected from the local market, from July 2020 to June 2021, using local currency (BDT). The local currency was converted to USD for the analysis purpose, as 1 BDT = 0.012 USD.
1152

2414
and n = 30 years (concrete lifetime) is considered for calculating the
320
154
768
d

20
kg

0
0
0
NPV.
From Table 8, it is seen that, the annual energy cost for GI fiber with

2417.5 126.21
36.16

35.64

46.75
0.00
7.66

0.00
0.00
0.00
$

NAC combinations vary from 45.38 $/m2 to 47.23 $/m2 and RAC
Steel 27.5

148.18
13.18

14.82
8.79
combinations vary from 38.77 $/m2 to 36.40 $/m2. Therefore, up to
1149.6
766.4

18.8% of energy costs can be saved using RA in GFRC. However, the RA

27.5
320
154
kg

0
0
0
d

without any GI fiber saves the maximum energy costs. Comparing the GI

Operating cost/m3 and Profit were considered 10% and 15% from the total cost of all components in the control mixture. Then, these values were fixed and used for other mixes.
138.89 fiber with steel fiber, the steel fiber exhibits a comparatively higher
36.16

35.58

59.50
0.00
7.65

0.00
0.00
0.00

energy cost. Approximately 5% and 29% higher energy costs may be

$
Steel 35

160.86
found using steel fiber in concrete compared to GI fiber with NA and RA.
13.18

16.09
8.79

In terms of annual energy-saving, though NAC combinations provide a

1147.8
765.2

2422
320
154
d

negative impact, RAC combinations can save a cost of up to 6.06 $/m2.

35
kg

0
0
0

Thus a payback period of 2.63 years to 4.62 years is pointed out for RAC
combinations depending on GI fiber lengths. On the contrary, no
123.59
41.81

30.02

45.86
0.00
5.89
0.00

0.00

0.00
$

payback period may achieve by using the steel fibers. The NPV for GFRC
RG5L36

145.56
13.18

14.56
8.79

with NA combinations vary from 1254.06 $/m2 to 1304.36 $/m2

1251

2401

whereas RA combinations vary from 1007.83 $/m2 to 1072.56 $/m2.

370
148
589

39
kg

The NPV decreases with increasing GI fiber lengths. Besides, by using the
RA in GFRC, approximately 18.7% NPV is decreased. However, it is
123.59
41.81

30.02

45.86
0.00
5.89
0.00

0.00

0.00
$

worth mentioning that steel fiber may increase the NPV value by almost
RG5L26

145.56
13.18

14.56
8.79

4.4% and 28.4% higher than GFRC with NA and RA, respectively.
1251

2401
370
148
589

39
kg

5.11. Emissions of CO2 and SO2

Steel 35, Steel 27.5, and Steel 20 mean concrete with steel fiber with 35 kg/m3, 27.5 kg/m3, and 20 kg/m3, respectively [86].
123.59
41.81

30.02

45.86
0.00
5.89
0.00

0.00

0.00
$
RG5L15

145.56
13.18

14.56

Increasing the thermal resistance of any structural element can

8.79

minimize heat transfer, minimizing fuel consumption and air pollution.

1251

2401
370
148
589

39
kg

The present study evaluates the fuel consumption (mfA ) and the emission
combustion rate of CO2 (MCO2 ) and SO2 (MSO2 ). The equations for
41.81

1251 30.02

2362 77.72
0.00
5.89
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

calculating the mfA , MCO2 , and MSO2 are adopted from Yildiz et al. [88]
$
RG0P0

13.18
99.69
8.79

9.97

and Al-Osta et al. [87] (Eq. (14) to Eq. (23)).

370
148
589
kg

( )
0

4
0
0

b
Ca Hb Od Se Nf + α.X.(O2 + 3.76N2 )→a.co2 + .H2 O + Y.O2 + e.SO2 + ZN2
The cost and emission rate analysis were estimated based on a roof slab with 10 cm thickness.

2
133.74
41.81

40.18

45.86
0.00
5.89

0.00
0.00

0.00

(14)
$
NG5L36

155.71
13.18

15.57
8.79

( ) ( )
b d
1296

2446

(15)
370
148
589

39
kg

X = a+ +e−
0
4

4 2
133.74
41.81

40.18

45.86
0.00
5.89

0.00
0.00

0.00

b d
$

(16)
NG5L26

Y = (α − 1)(a + + e − )
155.71
13.18

15.57
8.79

4 2
1296

2446

( )
370
148
589

39
kg

0
4

b d f
Z = 3.76α a + + e − + (17)
4 2 2
133.74
41.81

40.18

45.86

The cost of admixture is neglected for comparison purpose.

0.00
5.89

0.00
0.00

0.00
Cost analysis for an one m2 of roof slab with different batches.

/
NG5L15

155.71
13.18

15.57

a.CO2
8.79

MCO2 = ≡ kgCO2 kg fuel (18)

M
1296

2446
370
148
589

39
kg

0
4

/
e.SO2
MSO2 = ≡ kgSO2 kg fuel (19)
41.81

1296 40.18

2407 87.88
0.00
5.89

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

M
$
NG0P0

109.85
13.18

10.98
8.79

44.a
(20)
370
148
589

MCO2 = .mfA
kg

0
4
0
0

M
0.113
0.000
0.010
0.031
0.024
2.588
1.176
1.700
$/kg

64.e
MSO2 = .mfA (21)
M

M = 12.a + b + 16.d + 32.e + 14.f (kg/kmol) (22)

Operation Cost/m3 ($)
Materials

Cost of Slab ($/m2)

Total Cost ($/m3)

86400D
mfA = (23)
Units

Rroof .LHV.ηs
Admixture

Steel Fiber

Profit ($)

Here, the chemical formula of the fuel–oil is assumed as

GI Fiber
Cement
Table 7

Water

C7.3125H10.407O0.04S0.026N0.02., MCO2 , MSO2 , and mfA are in kg/m2.yr, M is

Sand

Note:
NA
RA

the weight of mol for fuel in kg/k.mol, D is the degree-days (D = 1431 K

b
b

d
b
a

a
c

15
Md.J. Islam et al. Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577

Table 8
Economic analysis of different concrete mixes.
a a b
Sample Density at Thermal Thermal Annual Annual Annual Concrete Increase in Simple NPV
Type 28 days Conductivity (λ) Resistance (R) Energy (E) Energy Cost Energy Cost (BC) Concrete Cost Payback ($/m2) (n
(kg/m3) (W/m.K) (m2.K/W) (kWh/m2) (EC) ($/m2) Saving ($/m2) ($/m2) Period (yr) = 30 yrs)
($/m2)

NG0P0 2272 2.51 0.040 399.26 41.92 0 10.98 10.98 0.00 1155.00
NG5L15 2371 2.83 0.035 449.78 47.23 − 5.31 15.57 15.57 0.00 1304.36
NG5L26 2348 2.75 0.036 437.92 45.98 − 4.06 15.57 15.57 0.00 1270.39
NG5L36 2337 2.72 0.037 432.23 45.38 − 3.46 15.57 15.57 0.00 1254.06
RG0P0 2158 2.15 0.047 341.56 35.86 6.06 9.97 9.97 1.64 988.66
RG5L15 2213 2.32 0.043 369.24 38.77 3.15 14.56 14.56 4.62 1072.56
RG5L26 2186 2.24 0.045 355.50 37.33 4.59 14.56 14.56 3.17 1033.19
RG5L36 2168 2.18 0.046 346.65 36.40 5.52 14.56 14.56 2.63 1007.83
c
Steel 35 2421 2.86 0.035 454.74 47.75 − 5.83 16.09 16.09 0.00 1319.09
c
Steel 2420 2.85 0.035 453.15 47.58 − 5.66 14.82 14.82 0.00 1313.26
27.5
c
Steel 20 2429 2.97 0.034 472.23 49.58 − 7.66 13.55 13.55 0.00 1366.67

Note:
a
Energy saving and increase in concrete cost were acquired for the control mixture. The cost of electricity is 0.105 $/kWh. In addition, Cost and energy values were
also standardized to the 10 cm thick concrete slab surface.
b
NPV = Net present value was examined over 30 years with discount rate and energy inflation rate equal i = 2.5% and e = 2%, respectively.
c
Steel 35, Steel 27.5, and Steel 20 mean concrete with steel fiber with 35 kg/m3, 27.5 kg/m3, and 20 kg/m3, respectively.

Fig. 24. Annual fuel consumption due to different concrete types.
for Dhaka city of Bangladesh), Rroof is the thermal resistance of roof in
W/m2.K, LHV is the lower heating value for oil fuel (LHV = 40.604 ×
106 J/kg), and ηs is the space heating system efficiency (ηs = 0.82). The
values of these parameters were adopted from Al-Osta et al. [87].
Fig. 24 shows the annual fuel consumption rate for various concrete
compositions. The annual consumption of fuel is increased by 12.7%,
9.7%, and 8.3% by using 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI fiber in NAC,
respectively. However, using RA instead of NA can decrease the fuel
consumption rate by 7.5%, 11%, and 13.2%. The RAC containing any
fiber exhibits the lowest fuel consumption. The NAC and RAC with steel
fiber may increase the fuel consumption by approximately 4.6% and
28.8%, respectively. The annual CO2 and SO2 emissions of different
concrete mixtures are shown in Fig. 25. The CO2 emission vary from
325.09 kg/m2.yr to 338.29 kg/m2.yr and the SO2 emission vary from
1.68 kg/m2.yr to 1.75 kg/m2.yr for GFRC with NA which are higher than
that of control mixture. On the other hand, using RA instead of NA can
reduce emissions by almost 19%. Comparing the GI fiber reinforced
concrete with steel fiber reinforced concrete, the steel fiber may emit
about 4.6% and 28.8% higher emissions than GI fiber with NA and RA.
Fig. 25. Annual CO2 and SO2 emissions of different concrete mixes.
The RAC with no GI fiber emits the lowest CO2 and SO2 emissions due to
its higher thermal resistance (0.047 m2.K/W).
6. Conclusions
The present study incorporates GI fiber with three different fiber
lengths into NAC and RAC. The properties are compared to those of PP
fiber-reinforced concrete and those without fiber. The following con­
clusions can be drawn based on the experimental findings:
• The inclusion of any type of fiber content decreased the slump value
and increased the air void. In terms of GI fiber, the slump value
decreased with increasing the GI fiber length while the air void
increased. Concrete with PP fiber showed the lowest slump value and
air void among the four types of fiber-reinforced concrete.
Comparing NAC and RAC combinations, the RAC combinations
showed a lower slump value and higher air void.
• The concrete with 15 mm GI fiber showed 24.7% and 16.3% higher
compressive strength with NA and RA, respectively. The concrete
with PP fiber provided around 26.9% and 20% reduction in

16
Md.J. Islam et al.
compressive strength compared to the control concrete mixtures.
Though 15 mm long GI fiber showed comparatively higher
compressive strength than the other GI fiber lengths, fiber length did
not significantly affect compressive strength. The effect of GI fiber
was more significant in compressive strength than that of PP fiber.
• All fiber-reinforced concrete showed a similar pattern of the
stress–strain curves under compression. The strain value decreased
with increasing the GI fiber length. The PFRC exhibited a compara­
tively higher strain capacity than GFRC in NAC and RAC combina­
tions. Almost 111% higher ductility was observed in PFRC compared
to the controls.
• The inclusion of GI fiber increased the modulus of elasticity (MoE)
compared to plain concrete, except for concrete with 26 mm long GI
fiber. However, no significant difference was observed in MoE for
concrete with GI fiber and without GI fiber. On the other hand, a
sharp drop in MoE was observed in PFRC. Comparing NAC and RAC
combinations, the RAC combinations provide a comparatively higher
MoE.
• All the fiber-reinforced concrete exhibited better split tensile
strength compared to plain concrete. Similar to compressive
strength, the 15 mm GI fiber concrete showed the highest split tensile
strength of 41% and 16.7% higher than the control mixture for NAC
and RAC, respectively.
• The incorporation of GI fiber increased the flexural strength of the
concrete, whereas PP fiber reduced it. Approximately 13.7% and
17% lower flexural strength was provided by NA and RA with PP
fiber. By incorporating the GI fiber into the concrete mixture, the
flexural strength was increased up to 30.9% and 29.8% for NAC and
RAC, respectively. Comparing between NAC and RAC combination,
the NAC showed comparatively higher flexural strength.
• All the fiber-reinforced concrete exhibited a higher toughness value
than control mixtures. GFRC provided a higher toughness value
compared to PFRC. Up to 186% and 116%, greater toughness was
achieved by GI fiber with NA and RA, respectively, whereas the PP
fiber increased it by 54% and 57%, respectively.
• The RA can save approximately 18.8% energy cost than NA in GFRC.
Using steel fiber may increase energy costs by almost 4.6% and
28.8% compared to GI fiber with NA and RA. Besides, the NPV may
improve by approximately 4.4% and 28.4% while using steel fiber.
• The annual fuel consumption may increase by 12.7%, 9.7%, and
8.3% for 15 mm, 26 mm, and 36 mm GI fiber in NAC, but replacing
NA with RA can decrease the rate by 7.5%, 11%, and 13.2%,
respectively. Besides, the RA can reduce the CO2 and SO2 emissions
by an average of 19%. On the contrary, steel fiber may increase fuel
consumption and pollution rates by 4.6% and 28.8% in NAC and
RAC.
Based on the experimental results, it can be concluded that GI fiber is
an excellent alternative for use in concrete, outperforming PP fiber in all
respects. Besides, GI fiber is more cost-effective compared to steel fiber.
However, although GI fiber length has minimal effect on compressive
strength and MoE, it plays a significant role in other properties, such as
slump value, air void, tensile strength, flexural strength, and toughness.
The appropriate fiber length should be determined based on the con­
straints and specifications of the given application of concrete in the
construction industry. Based on the experimental result, it is suggested
to use 15 mm long GI fiber with an aspect ratio of 30 both in NAC and
RAC. Future research will focus on the dynamic properties and impact
resistance of GI fiber reinforced concrete. Besides, microstructural an­
alyses of GFRC will be investigated through scanning electron micro­
scopy in the future. The flexural and compressive behavior of GI fiber-
reinforced RC beams and columns will also need to be evaluated.
Future studies should be carried out to investigate the long-term me­
chanical and durability properties of GFRC, varying the percentage of GI
fiber and RA level to determine their upper limit to be used in the
concrete mixture. This will generate more data to validate the
17
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
applicability of the proposed equations to quantify the key mechanical
properties of GFRC. It should be noted that the proposed equations are
limited to the range of data used.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Md. Jahidul Islam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. Kamrul Islam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Su­
pervision, Writing – review & editing. Md. Shahjalal: Investigation,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – re­
view & editing. Ehsani Khatun: Investigation, Data curation, Writing –
original draft. Somaiya Islam: Investigation, Data curation. Anika
Binte Razzaque: Investigation, Data curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support and the
laboratory facilities provided by the Concrete Laboratory and the Civil
Engineering Department of Military Institute of Science & Technology
(MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
References
[1] O.A. Qasim, Comparative study between the Cost of Normal Concrete and Reactive
Powder Concrete, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 518
(2) (2019), 022082.
[2] K. Slowey, Report: Global construction waste will almost double by 2025, (2018).
[3] S.B. Huda, M.S. Alam, Mechanical behavior of three generations of 100% repeated
recycled coarse aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 65 (2014) 574–582.
[4] M. Shahjalal, F.M.Z. Hossain, K. Islam, M. Tiznobaik, M.S. Alam, Experimental
Study On the Mechanical Properties Of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Using Crumb
Rubber And Polypropylene Fiber, CSCE Annual Conference (CSCE-2019), Canada,
2019.
[5] M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, J. Rahman, K.S. Ahmed, M.R. Karim, A.H.M.M. Billah,
Flexural response of fiber reinforced concrete beams with waste tires rubber and
recycled aggregate, J. Cleaner Prod. 278 (2021), 123842.
[6] F.M.Z. Hossain, M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, M. Tiznobaik, M.S. Alam, Mechanical
properties of recycled aggregate concrete containing crumb rubber and
polypropylene fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 225 (2019) 983–996.
[7] M.S. Alam, E. Slater, A.H.M.M. Billah, Green Concrete Made with RCA and FRP
Scrap Aggregate: Fresh and Hardened Properties, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (12) (2013)
1783–1794.
[8] M.J. Islam, M.S. Meherier, A.K.M.R. Islam, Effects of waste PET as coarse aggregate
on the fresh and harden properties of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016)
946–951.
[9] T.U. Mohammed, A. Hasnat, M.A. Awal, S.Z. Bosunia, Recycling of brick aggregate
concrete as coarse aggregate, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (7) (2015).
[10] R.V. Silva, J. de Brito, R.K. Dhir, The influence of the use of recycled aggregates on
the compressive strength of concrete: a review, European Journal of Environmental
and Civil Engineering 19 (7) (2015) 825–849.
[11] R.V. Silva, J. de Brito, R.K. Dhir, Tensile strength behaviour of recycled aggregate
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 83 (2015) 108–118.
[12] L. Evangelista, J. de Brito, Mechanical behaviour of concrete made with fine
recycled concrete aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (5) (2007) 397–401.
[13] M.J. Islam, I.A. Dipta, M. Rahat, Investigation of recycled poly-ethylene
terephthalate (PET) as partial replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete, Journal
of Civil Engineering (IEB) 46 (1) (2018) 11–20.
[14] M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, K.S. Ahmed, K. Tamanna, M.S. Alam, Mechanical
Characterization of Rubberized Fiber Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete for
Bridge Barriers, IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-
IV, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.
[15] ACI Committee 555, Removal and reuse of hardened concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001.
[16] CSA A23.1/23.2, Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/
Methods of Test and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian Standards
Association, Canada, 2014.
[17] ASTM C33-18, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
Md.J. Islam et al.
[18] J. de Brito, R. Robles, Recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) methodology for
estimating its long-term properties, Indian Journal of Engineering and Materials
Sciences 17 (2010) 449–462.
[19] R.V. Silva, J. de Brito, R.K. Dhir, Properties and composition of recycled aggregates
from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production, Constr.
Build. Mater. 65 (2014) 201–217.
[20] D. Matias, J. de Brito, A. Rosa, P. d.,, Mechanical properties of concrete produced
with recycled coarse aggregates – Influence of the use of superplasticizers, Constr.
Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 101–109.
[21] G. Bai, C. Zhu, C. Liu, B. Liu, An evaluation of the recycled aggregate
characteristics and the recycled aggregate concrete mechanical properties, Constr.
Build. Mater. 240 (2020), 117978.
[22] Z.H. Duan, C.S. Poon, Properties of recycled aggregate concrete made with
recycled aggregates with different amounts of old adhered mortars, Mater. Des. 58
(2014) 19–29.
[23] K. Tamanna, Mechanical properties of rubberized concrete containing recycled
concrete aggregate and polypropylene fiber, University of British Columbia,
Canada, Civil Engineering, 2018.
[24] K.P. Verian, W. Ashraf, Y. Cao, Properties of recycled concrete aggregate and their
influence in new concrete production, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 133 (2018) 30–49.
[25] N. Otsuki, S. Miyazato, W. Yodsudjai, Influence of Recycled Aggregate on
Interfacial Transition Zone, Strength, Chloride Penetration and Carbonation of
Concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 15 (5) (2003) 443–451.
[26] J. Xiao, J. Li, C. Zhang, Mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete under
uniaxial loading, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (6) (2005) 1187–1194.
[27] W.-C. Choi, H.-D. Yun, Compressive behavior of reinforced concrete columns with
recycled aggregate under uniaxial loading, Eng. Struct. 41 (2012) 285–293.
[28] N.Y. Ho, Y.P.K. Lee, W.F. Lim, T. Zayed, K.C. Chew, G.L. Low, S.K. Ting, Efficient
Utilization of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Structural Concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 25 (3) (2013) 18–27.
[29] A. Lotfy, M. Al-Fayez, Performance Evaluation of Structural Concrete Using
Controlled Quality Coarse and Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 61 (2015) 36–43.
[30] C. Zhou, Z. Chen, Mechanical properties of recycled concrete made with different
types of coarse aggregate, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 497–506.
[31] S.B. Huda, M. Shahria Alam, Mechanical and Freeze-Thaw Durability Properties of
Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made with Recycled Coarse Aggregate, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 27 (10) (2015) 04015003.
[32] M.C. Limbachiya, T. Leelawat, R.K. Dhir, Use of recycled concrete aggregate in
high-strength concrete, Mater. Struct. 33 (2000) 574.
[33] C.F. Hendriks, H.S. Pieterson, Sustainable raw materials—construction and
demolition waste. RILEM report, RILEM Publication Series 22 (1998).
[34] BSI-BS 6543. BS 6543—guide to the use of industrial byproducts and waste
materials in building and civil engineering, British Standards Institution, London,
1985.
[35] DM, New technical standard for civil construction, Italian Ministry of
Infrastructure (2008).
[36] I.B. Topcu, M. Canbaz, Effect of different fibers on the mechanical properties of
concrete containing fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (7) (2007) 1486–1491.
[37] V. Afroughsabet, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Mechanical and durability properties of high-
strength concrete containing steel and polypropylene fibers, Constr. Build. Mater.
94 (2015) 73–82.
[38] S. Kurtz, P. Balaguru, Postcrack creep of polymeric fiber-reinforced concrete in
flexure, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2) (2000) 183–190.
[39] X. Luo, W. Sun, Y.N. Chan, Characteristics of high performance steel fiber
reinforced concrete subject to high velocity impact, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (6) (2000)
907–914.
[40] F. Puertas, T. Amat, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, V. t.,, Mechanical and durable
behaviour of alkaline cement mortars reinforced with polypropylene fibers, Cem.
Concr. Res. 33 (12) (2003) 2031–2036.
[41] ACI 544.1R-96, Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Committee 544,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2009.
[42] F. Bencardino, L. Rizzuti, G. Spadea, R.N. Swamy, Stress-strain behavior of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete in compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (3) (2008)
255–263.
[43] N.V. Chanh, Steel fiber reinforced concrete, Proceedings of JSCE-VIFCEA Joint
Seminar on Concrete, Engineering (2005) 108–116.
[44] M. Musmar, Tensile strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete, Contemporary
Engineering Sciences 6 (5) (2013) 225–237.
[45] D. Otter, A.E. Naaman, Properties of steel fiber reinforced concrete under cyclic
loading, ACI Mater. J. 85 (4) (1988) 254–261.
[46] P. Ramadoss, K. Nagamani, Tensile strength and durability characteristics of high
performance fiber-reinforced concrete, Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering 33 (2B) (2008) 307–319.
[47] R.V. Balendran, F.P. Zhou, A. Nadeem, A.Y.T. Leung, Influence of steel fibres on
strength and ductility of normal and lightweight high strength concrete, Build.
Environ. 37 (12) (2002) 1361–1367.
[48] J.A.O. Barros, 4 - Steel fibre reinforced concrete: Material properties and structural
applications, in: R. Fangueiro (Ed.), Fibrous and Composite Materials for Civil
Engineering Applications, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2011, pp. 95–155.
[49] ACI 544.4R-88, Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI
Committee 544, Farmington Hills, MI, 2009.
18
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
[50] Y. Zheng, X. Wu, G. He, Q. Shang, J. Xu, Y. Sun, Mechanical Properties of Steel
Fiber-Reinforced Concrete by Vibratory Mixing Technology, Advances in Civil
Engineering 2018 (2018).
[51] J. Lee, T. Yuan, H. Shin, Y. Yoon, Strategic use of steel fibers and stirrups on
enhancing impact resistance of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
beams, Cem. Concr. Compos. 107 (2020), 103499.
[52] T. Uygunoğlu, Effect of fiber type and content on bleeding of steel fiber reinforced
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2) (2011) 766–772.
[53] V. Guerini, A. Conforti, G. Plizzari, S. Kawashima, Influence of Steel and Macro-
Synthetic Fibers on Concrete Properties, Fibers 6 (3) (2018) 47.
[54] V. Ramakrishnan, G.Y. Wu, G. Hosalli, Flexural behavior and toughness of fiber
reinforced concretes, Transp. Res. Rec. 1226 (1989) 69–77.
[55] S. Ahmed, I.A. Bukhari, J.I. Siddiqui, S.A. Qureshi, A study on properties of
polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete. 31st Conference on OUR WORLD IN
CONCRETE & STRUCTURES, 2006.
[56] A.M. Alhozaimy, P. Soroushian, F. Mirza, Mechanical properties of polypropylene
fiber reinforced concrete and the effects of pozzolanic materials, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 18 (2) (1996) 85–92.
[57] H. Mazaheripour, S. Ghanbarpour, S.H. Mirmoradi, I. Hosseinpour, The effect of
polypropylene fibers on the properties of fresh and hardened lightweight self-
compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (1) (2011) 351–358.
[58] M.A.B. Emon, T. Manzur, M.S. Sharif, Suitability of locally manufactured
galvanized iron (GI) wire fiber as reinforcing fiber in brick chip concrete, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 7 (2017) 217–227.
[59] M.A.B. Emon, T. Manzur, N. Yazdani, Improving performance of light weight
concrete with brick chips using low cost steel wire fiber, Constr. Build. Mater. 106
(2016) 575–583.
[60] C.R. Meesala, Influence of different types of fiber on the properties of recycled
aggregate concrete, Structural Concrete 20 (5) (2019) 1656–1669.
[61] D. Gao, Z. Gu, Y. Pang, L. Yang, Mechanical properties of recycled fine aggregate
concrete incorporating different types of fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 298 (2021),
123732.
[62] P. Zhang, Y. Yang, J. Wang, S. Hu, M. Jiao, Y. Ling, Mechanical Properties and
Durability of Polypropylene and Steel Fiber-Reinforced Recycled Aggregates
Concrete (FRRAC): A Review, Sustainability 12 (9509) (2020) 1–38.
[63] ASTM C150-20, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2020.
[64] ASTM C114-18, Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic
Cement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[65] ASTM C187-16, Standard Test Method for Amount of Water Required for Normal
Consistency of Hydraulic Cement Paste, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2016.
[66] ASTM C188-17, Standard Test Method for Density of Hydraulic Cement, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[67] ASTM C204-18, Standard Test Methods for Fineness of Hydraulic Cement by Air-
Permeability Apparatus, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[68] ASTM C109-20, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm]. Cube Specimens), ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2020.
[69] M.J. Islam, M.R. Alam, M.R. Islam, M. Hasanuzzaman, Evaluation of Commonly
Used Aggregates for Sustainable Infrastructure Development In Bangladesh,
International Journal of GEOMATE 18 (66) (2020) 98–104.
[70] ASTM C29-17, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in
Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[71] ASTM C127-15, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and
Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2015.
[72] ASTM C136-19, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[73] ASTM C128-15, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and
Absorption of Fine Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[74] ACI 544.3R-08, Guide for Specifying, Proportioning, and Production of Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete, ACI Committee 544, 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington
Hills, MI 48331, 2008.
[75] P. Shafigh, H. Mahmud, M.Z. Jumaat, Effect of steel fiber on the mechanical
properties of oil palm shell lightweight concrete, Mater. Des. 32 (7) (2011)
3926–3932.
[76] M.V. Mohod, Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete, IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering 12 (1) (2015) 28–36.
[77] ASTM C39-21, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[78] ASTM C78-21, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using
Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2021.
[79] ASTM C1609-19, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading), ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2019.
[80] ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14)
and Commentary (ACI 318RM-14), ACI Committee 318, Farmington Hills, MI,
2014.
[81] CSA A23.3-14, Design of Concrete Structures, Canadian Standards Association,
Canada, 2014.
Md.J. Islam et al.
[82] fib2010, fib Model Code for Concrete Structures, International Fedaration for
Structural Concrete (2010).
[83] B.M. Hanumesh, B.A. Harish, N.V. Ramana, Influence of polypropylene fibers on
recycled aggregate concrete, Mater. Today 5 (1) (2018) 1147–1155.
[84] K.R. Akça, O. Çakır, M. Ipek, Properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete
using recycled aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 620–630.
[85] Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-1, Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1–1: General Rules
and Rules for Buildings, Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2005.
19
Construction and Building Materials 337 (2022) 127577
[86] B. Nagy, S.G. Nehme, D. Szagri, Thermal properties and modeling of fiber
reinforced concretes, Energy Procedia 78 (2015) 2742–2747.
[87] M.A. Al-Osta, A.S. Al-Tamimi, S.M. Al-Tarbi, O.S.B. Al-Amoudi, W.A. Al-Awsh, T.
A. Saleh, Development of sustainable concrete using recycled high-density
polyethylene and crumb tires: Mechanical and thermal properties, Journal of
Building Engineering 45 (2022), 103399.
[88] A. Yildiz, G. Gurlek, M. Erkek, N. Özbalta, Economical and environmental analyses
of thermal insulation thickness in buildings, J. Therm. Sci. Technol. 28 (2) (2008)
25–34.