Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Communications
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coco

Environmental and economic benefits of steel, glass, and polypropylene

fiber reinforced cement composite application in jointed plain
concrete pavement
Babar Ali a, *, Liaqat Ali Qureshi b, Rawaz Kurda c, d, e
a
COMSATS University Islamabad – Sahiwal Campus, Sahiwal, 57000, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Swedish College of Engineering and Technology, Wah Cantt, 47060, Pakistan
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical Engineering College, Erbil Polytechnic University, Erbil, Kurdistan-Region, Iraq
d
Scientific Research and Development Center, Nawroz University, Duhok, Kurdistan-Region, Iraq
e
CERIS, Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georresources Department, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisbon, Portugal

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

Keywords: Conventional plain concrete (PC) leads to large design thickness when used in applications where high flexural
Concrete pavement strength is required. Therefore, to minimize the consumption of natural resources and to avoid large design
Fiber-reinforced composites thickness, it is fundamental to upgrade the flexural strength of PC by using supplementary materials i.e. steel
Steel fiber
rebars, fibers. This study evaluated the environmental and economic performance of the pavements designed
Carbon footprint and cost analysis
with different fibrous concrete composites (FCCs). FCCs were manufactured by incorporating 0.5 and 1.0%
volume fractions of glass fiber (GF), hooked steel fiber (HSF), and polypropylene fiber (PPF) in the normal
strength concrete (C30). Initially, the flexural properties of FCCs were evaluated and then these properties were
utilized to design the thickness of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP). Using the cost and carbon emissions
per cubic meter of each concrete mix, the environmental and economic performance of JPCP construction was
estimated. The performance of different FCCs in the JPCP was compared with that of the conventional PC. The
results of mechanical testing showed that HSF-FCC outperforms both PPF-FCC and GF-FCC by a significant
margin. Despite inferior mechanical performance compared to HSF-FCC, both PPF-FCC and GF-FCC are very
effective in reducing the carbon footprint and cost of JPCP. JPCPs with GF-FCC and PPF-FCC are also ecofriendly
and economical than the JPCP with conventional PC for the same load-carrying capacity. Overall, FCC can yield
cheaper and eco-friendlier pavements compared to conventional PC if the dosage and type of fiber are correctly
chosen as recommended in this study.

1. INTRODUCTION advantages over conventional steel rebar reinforced concretes such as

the better distribution of reinforcement in the whole matrix of concrete,
Conventional plain concrete (PC) despite high brittleness is the most reduced tensile cracking, and a significant increase in both compression
widely used construction material on earth. Brittleness of PC increases and flexural toughness [5–10]. FCCs also have high durability under
with the increment in strength [1]. Under tension or flexural loadings, extreme environmental conditions i.e. freeze-thaw cycles, acid attacks,
its strength is less than 12% of its compressive strength [2,3]. In struc­ chloride mediums, seawater environments, etc. [3,8,11–15].
tural applications where high flexural strength and toughness are Various types of fibers are being used in the construction industry
required such as rigid pavements, PC due to its very low ductility re­ such as steel, glass, polypropylene, carbon, basalt fibers, cork fiber,
quires a large thickness to meet the design needs. In rigid pavements, to cardboard fibers, etc. and properties of concretes with these types of
avoid a large design thickness, steel rebars are conventionally used. fibers have evaluated widely [16–24]. Due to very high tensile strength
Another approach to avoid the large structural dimensions is by and elastic modulus, fiber-reinforcement can boost the power of the
increasing the flexural capacity of PC using a suitable binder matrix of concrete to contain the tensile or flexural cracks that
fiber-reinforcement [4]. Fibrous concrete composites (FCCs) have many ultimately improves the flexural capacity of material [3,25]. Hooked

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Ali), [email protected] (L.A. Qureshi), [email protected] (R. Kurda).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coco.2020.100437
Received 21 May 2020; Received in revised form 25 July 2020; Accepted 7 August 2020
Available online 22 August 2020
2452-2139/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

steel fiber (HSF) incorporation can increase the flexural strength of Table 2
concrete by more than 80% [8,26]. Glass fiber (GF) incorporation at Properties of fibers.
0.25–0.5% volume fractions leads to an increment of 25–29% in the Property HSF GF PPF
flexural strength [27]. Similarly, polypropylene fiber (PPF) advances the
Length (mm) 35 6–18 12
tensile strength of PC by 20% [23]. A review of various studies in Diameter of filament (μm) 900 15 30
literature reveals that fibers are only effective in advancing the flexural Tensile strength (MPa) 1200 1500–1700 500
and tensile strength of concrete and no noticeable advancement in Elastic modulus (GPa) 200 72 5
compressive strength can be achieved with fibers [23,28]. This implies Density (kg/m3) 7750 2600 900

that fiber-reinforced concretes can only be helpful economically in ap­ SF: Steel fibers; GF: Glass fibers; PPF: Polypropylene fibers.
plications where high flexural strength is required such as slabs on
grounds, runaways, parking, linings of the tunnel, etc. [29]. compressive strength of 30 MPa was prepared following ACI 211.1-9
Jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) is an important part of [35]. In this concrete, two different dosages (0.5 and 1% volume frac­
public infrastructure i.e. business streets, collector streets, industrial tion) of HSF, GF, and PPF were used to make FCCs. 50 mm slump was
streets, minor and major arterials. It is well known that incorporating chosen for the workability that is normally preferred for placing con­
fibers enhances the flexural strength of composite, but a very few studies crete in the rigid pavements. In FCCs, workability loss due to fibers was
[30,31] are available in the literature which explore and compare the compensated using a superplasticizer (SP) (Sika Viscocrete 3110). De­
effects of different fibers on the design thicknesses of pavements under tails of all composites are provided in Table 3.
the same conditions of traffic loadings and subgrade conditions. All mixes were prepared in a mechanical mixer with adjustable
Furthermore, no research is available which compares the benefits of rotational speed. Firstly, aggregates and cement were dry blended at the
different types and doses of fiber considering the economic and envi­ speed of 40 rpm for 2 min. Then, half amount of water was added to the
ronmental impacts of FCC application in concrete pavements. The in­ mix and blending continued at 60 rpm for 2 min. Subsequently,
formation in this regard is necessary for the selection of suitable type of remaining half amount of water and superplasticizer were added to the
fiber-reinforcement for the optimum mechanical benefits with minimum mixture and blending continued at 60 rpm for 4 min. During the last
cost and carbon footprint. Therefore, this short communication aims to stage, fibers were added to the mix and blending was done at a rapid
analyze the cost and carbon footprint of JPCP with different types of speed of 80 rpm for 2 min. Then, until the finishing of casting of spec­
fibers i.e. HSF, GF, and PPF. For this purpose, initially, the mechanical imens, blending was continued at 40 rpm.
properties (flexural strength and residual strength) of FCCs were eval­
uated. Then considering the same service conditions (traffic category,
2.3. Evaluation of flexural behavior of composites
truck loading, subgrade properties, etc.) design thickness of JPCP was
evaluated for FCC and conventional plain concrete (PC) following the
For flexural testing, specimens of 100 mm × 100 mm x 350 mm were
Portland Cement Association (PCA) mechanistic design method for
tested following ASTM C78 [36] as shown in Fig. 2. The load-deflection
concrete pavements [32]. Cost and carbon footprint (CO2) of JPCP per
behavior of these prismatic specimens was evaluated according to ASTM
unit area was estimated for all the mixes under the same design condi­
C1609 [37]. Load deflection data was used to calculate the flexural
tions and the results were compared to evaluate the impacts of FCC
toughness and residual strength. Both flexural and residual strength are
application in pavement structures w.r.t conventional PC.
used in the thickness design of JPCP following PCA mechanistic design
method [32].
2. MATERIALS and methods

2.4. Thickness design of pavement

2.1. Materials

Using the mechanical properties (flexural strength and residual

General purpose, Portland cement of Type I conforming to ASTM
strength as per ASTM C78) of each composite, thickness of jointed plain
C150 [33] was used as the binder. Type I. This type of cement is the most
concrete pavement (JPCP) was designed for Major Arterial street (it has
common binder used in the construction of concrete pavements world­
the highest truck traffic). All design input parameters are given in Ta­
wide. Crushed limestone and siliceous sand were used as fine and coarse
bles 4 and 5. While designing the pavement thickness, all general design
aggregates, respectively. Crushed limestone is sourced from a quarry of
inputs were kept the same for all composites except mechanical prop­
Margalla Hills, Taxila, Pakistan. Whereas, siliceous sand is sourced from
erties [32].
Lawrancepur quarry in Attock, Pakistan. Basic properties of these ag­
gregates are given in Table 1. Gradation of aggregates is within the limits
of ASTM C33 [34] set for construction aggregates. Properties fiber re­ 2.5. Economic and environmental analysis of pavement for different
inforcements i.e. HSF, GF, and PPF are shown in Table 2. Overview of mixes
fibers is shown in Fig. 1.
To evaluate the economic performance of pavement with different
mixes, firstly, the cost per unit volume of each concrete mix was
2.2. Composition and manufacturing details of composites calculated using the unit costs of its raw materials given in Table 6. In
the cost of concrete mix, 20 USD per cubic meter was added as the
Mix design of normal strength concrete performing cylindrical charges for mixing, transporting, and placing concrete. Then using the
cost of mixes, the cost per square meter of pavement was calculated
Table 1 using Eq. (1). Normally, for cost estimation of highway projects, cost per
Properties of aggregate. square meter of pavement is used. Therefore, the economic performance
Property Fine aggregate Coarse Aggregate of pavements with different types of composite materials can be best
compared by evaluating the cost of pavement per unit area under the
Material type Siliceous sand Limestone
Water absorption (%) 1.13 0.75 same service conditions.
Max. particle size (mm) 4.75 25 While energy emission and consumption in a highway facility is
Fineness modulus 2.54 – mostly related to the burning of gasoline through the automobiles,
Specific Gravity 2.67 2.65 construction of pavement facility is also a huge cause for significant
Dry Rodded Density (kg/m3) 1620 1540
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, to

2
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Fig. 1. Overview of (a) HSF (b) GF, and (c) PPF.

Table 3
Details of concrete mixes.
Mix IDs Cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) Fine aggregate (kg/m3) SP (kg/m3) HSF (kg/m3) GF (kg/m3) PPF (kg/m3)

PC 330 180 1076 796 0 0 0 0

FCC-0.5%HSF 330 180 1070 790 3.4 39 0 0
FCC-1%HSF 330 180 1063 783 4.5 78 0 0
FCC-0.5%GF 330 180 1070 790 3.4 0 13 0
FCC-1%GF 330 180 1063 783 4.5 0 26 0
FCC-0.5%PPF 330 180 1070 790 3.4 0 0 4.5
FCC-1%PPF 330 180 1063 783 4.5 0 0 9

Table 5
Global design inputs and properties of subgrade and concrete.
Global design inputs

Terminal serviceability 2
Reliability 85%
Resilient modulus of subgrade reaction 28 MPa
Slab cracked at the end of design life 15%
Composite modulus of subgrade reaction 28 MPa
Edge-support Provided (at both sides)

Concrete material properties

Flexural strength or Modulus of rupture (MPa) Different for all mixes

Residual strength (%) Different for FCCs
0% for PCa
Macro-fibers Considered for FCC
No for PC
a
PC: Plain concrete mixes.

determine the environmental impact of pavement with different types of

Fig. 2. Experimental test setup for third-pointed bending test. mixes, firstly, carbon emission per unit volume of each mix was calcu­
lated using the per-unit emissions of its raw materials provided in
Table 6. Then, carbon emissions per square meter of the pavement for
different mixes was calculated using Eq. (2). Environmental impact of
Table 4
pavement for different types of mixes can be fairly assessed using Eq. (2).
Traffic category and truckload.
Input Street 2 CP = COSTMIX × hDesign (1)
Traffic Spectruma Major Arterial
Trucks/day 1500
CEP = CEMIX × hDesign (2)
Traffic growth 2%
Design life 30 Years where.
Directional distribution 50%
Design lane distribution 100% CP = Cost of pavement per square meter (USD/m2)
Average trucks/day in design lane over the design life 1014
Total trucks on design lane over the design life 11,113,118
COSTMIX = cost of each concrete composite per cubic meter (USD/m3)
hDesign = Design thickness of pavement for a concrete composite (m)
a
Load spectrums for these traffic categories are given in PCA mechanistic CEP = Carbon emissions (CO2) of pavement per square meter (CO2/m2)
design guidelines [32].

3
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Table 6
Cost and emission of raw materials per unit production.
Material USD/kg CO2 (kg/kg)

Portland cement 0.1344 0.92 [38]

Quarry sand 0.0065 0.0015 [38]
Crushed limestone 0.0109 0.0285 [38]
HSF 0.8 2.65 [30]
GF 0.75 2.04 [39]
PPF 0.9 1.85 [39]
Water 0.0009 0
Superplasticizer 1.45 0.00181 [38]

CEMIX= Carbon emissions (CO2) of concrete composite mix per cubic

meter (CO2/m3)

3. RESULTS and discussion

3.1. Flexural behavior of composites with different fibers

3.1.1. Flexural strength

Load-deflection data for all composites is plotted in Fig. 3 under a
third-point flexural test following ASTM C78 and C1609 [36,37]. Flex­
ural strength calculated using the peak load on the specimen from Fig. 4. (a) Flexural strength and (b) residual flexural strength of all composites.
load-deflection data is shown in Fig. 4. The results of flexural strength
show that all FCCs perform significantly better than PC at both dosages i. and 1% fiber, respectively. FCC-PPF shows inferior performance
e. 0.5% and 1%. Peak load increases with the rising dosage of fiber for a compared to FCC-HSF and FCC-GF and it shows improvements of 9%
given type of FCC. A maximum peak load or flexural strength is observed and 18%, respectively at 0.5% and 1% fiber dosage. Higher elastic
for FCCs incorporating HSF. FCC-HSF shows 25% and 47% higher modulus and better bond strength of HSF compared to GF and PPF
flexural strength than PC at 0.5% and 1% volume of fiber, respectively. attributed to higher flexural strength of FCC-HSF [8,12]. GF has a high
FCC-GF shows 15% and 28% higher flexural strength than PC at 0.5% tensile strength but it shows poor bond strength with the binder matrix

Fig. 3. Load-deflection behavior of composites (a) FCC-HSF, (b) FCC-GF, and (c) FCC-PPF up to L/150 = 2 mm of deflection.

4
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Fig. 5. Failure pattern of (a) PC (b) FCC-1%HSF (c) FCC-1%GF and (d) FCC-1%PPF after mid span deflection of 2 mm.

3.1.2. Residual strength

The residual strength evaluated from the load-deflection curves is
shown for all mixes in Fig. 4. Overview of load-deflection data (see
Fig. 3) shows that FCC-HSF has higher residual strength compared to
FCCs with other fibers. High load intercept at 2 mm deflection (L/150 =
2 mm) is maximum for FCC-HSF at both dosages i.e. 0.5% and 1%. The
residual strength of FCCs also depends upon the type of fiber. High bond
strength of HSF can ensure better post-peak load-deflection behavior of
concrete. Hooks of HSF provide better interlocking of fibers with the
binder matrix than in the cases of plain fibers like GF and PPF. The plain
fibers like GF and PPF may slip easily under very high tensile stresses
(due to low pullout resistance compared to HSF) in the post-peak loads.
Therefore, FCC-HSF shows higher residual strength than FCC-GF and
FCC-PPF. PC does not reach the deflection of 2 mm because it fails
suddenly after the peak load and it takes no considerable load after peak
load. Therefore, the PC has zero residual strength. For a given fiber type,
residual flexural strength increases with increasing fiber volume. This
finding is in line with Xue et al. [6].
The failure pattern of PC, FCC-1%HSF, FCC-1%GF and FCC-1%PPF is
shown in Fig. 5. It can be noticed that PC undergone a complete rupture
prior to mid-span deflection of 2 mm. Whereas, FCC-1%HSF did not
ruptured completely after 2 mm deflection retained sufficient strength
after peak load compared to FCC-GF and FCC-PPF. Both FCC-GF and
FCC-PPF did not show complete rupture like FCC-HSF after 2 mm
Fig. 6. Design thickness of jointed plain concrete pavement for each type of deflection. But both FCC-GF and FCC-PPF retained smaller residual
composites at similar load-carrying capacity. strength unlike FCC-HSF, and these mixes were more prone to rupture
failure compared to FCC-HSF.
[25]. The failure of HSF under tensile loading occurs due to rupture of
fibers, whereas in the case of GF, fibers fail due to slippage; therefore, 3.2. Design thickness of the pavement
full efficiency of the tensile strength of GF cannot be utilized in resisting
tensile stress. Furthermore, PPF has lower tensile strength and elastic Design thickness (hDesign) of pavement for each composite is shown in
modulus compared to both GF and HSF, which may be the reason for the Fig. 6. It is noticed that hDesign reduces significantly with the addition of
inferior performance of FCC-PPF. The failure of PPF can occur due to fiber in concrete. Fiber reinforcement can reduce the hDesign of pavement
both rupture (owing to its low tensile strength) and slippage of fibers by 35–65 mm depending on the type and dosage of fiber. FCCs due to
(owing to its plain shape). Another interesting conclusion from the re­ high flexural and residual strength yield smaller hDesign compared to PC
sults is that FCC-HSF0.5 performs like both FCC-GF1 and FCC-PPF1. It for the same loadings on JPCP. Significance of role of fiber type and
means that a small fiber volume of HSF and a high fiber volume of PPF dosage is evident in hDesign reduction, for example, FCC-HSF yields a
and GF yield similar benefits. This efficiency of HSF is already attributed lower hDesign compared to FCC-GF and FCC-PPF. Moreover, FCC at 0.5%
to its better bond strength and higher elastic modulus compared to PPF HSF yields lesser or comparable hDesign than FCCs containing 1% fiber
and GF. volume of PPF or GF. This efficiency is ascribed to the high flexural
strength of FCC-HSF compared to both GF and PPF-HSF at the same dose

5
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Table 7
Cost per cubic meter of each composite (USD/m3) (incl. 20 USD/m3).
Mix IDs Cement Water Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate SP HSF GF PPF Cost of Mix
(USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3) (USD/m3)

PC 44.352 0.162 11.73 5.17 0.00 0 0 0 81.4

FCC- 44.352 0.162 11.66 5.14 4.93 31 0 0 117.4
0.5%
HSF
FCC-1% 44.352 0.162 11.59 5.09 6.53 62 0 0 150.1
HSF
FCC- 44.352 0.162 11.66 5.14 4.93 0 9.75 0 96.0
0.5%
GF
FCC-1% 44.352 0.162 11.59 5.09 6.53 0 19.5 0 107.2
GF
FCC- 44.352 0.162 11.66 5.14 4.93 0 0 4.05 90.3
0.5%
PPF
FCC-1% 44.352 0.162 11.59 5.09 6.53 0 0 8.1 95.8
PPF

mass of HSF (kg) is very high compared to both GF and PPF (see
Table 7). For example, 0.5%HSF requires 39 kg of fiber, whereas, 0.5%
GF and 0.5%PPF volume fractions require 13 kg and 4.5 kg of fiber,
respectively. Therefore, HSF due to the requirement of a very high
amount of mass per unit volume significantly increases the CP of the
pavement. These results also show the importance of the strength per
unit mass of fibers. Fiber like HSF, despite showing large reductions in
the hDesign of pavement jeopardizes the economy of construction. Low-
density fibers like GF and PPF, caused smaller reductions in the hDesign
compared to that of the HSF, despite that CP of pavements with these
fibers is significantly lower than that of the PC. This is only because of
smaller increments in the cost of concrete mixes caused by PPF and GF
(see Table 7). FCC-0.5%GF, FCC-1%GF, FCC-0.5%PPF and FCC-1%PPF
can produce 10%, 5%, 6% and 8% cheaper pavements, respectively
compared to conventional PC.
The calculation of carbon emissions per cubic meter of each mix is
given in Table 8. Carbon emissions of pavement (CEP) per square meter
(CO2/m2) with different mixes are given in Fig. 8. Overview of Table 8
indicates that all FCCs per unit volume production have a higher carbon
Fig. 7. Cost of pavement (CP) per square pavement for different con­ footprint than that of PC. Moreover, HSF shows a higher carbon foot­
crete composites. print than PPF, and GF mainly ascribed to two reasons (1) firstly because
of the requirement of high mass per unit volume and (2) HSF also has a
of fiber. No significant change in hDesign is noticed beyond 0.5% fiber higher carbon footprint than both GF and PPF. Despite a high carbon
volume in cases of both FCC-HSF and FCC-GF. This is because, at 0.5% footprint per cubic meter, the CEP of pavement with FCC is noticeably
fiber volume, hDesign of pavement with FCC-HSF and FCC-GF reaches lower than that of the PC. This is because the FCC requires the lesser
very close to the minimum required thickness of 170 mm for a major quantity of raw material (cement, coarse and fine aggregate) compared
arterial street (in any case hDesign should not be less than 170 mm [32]); to PC in order to produce pavement for the same load-carrying capacity.
therefore, when flexural strength is increased with the rise in fiber Therefore, per square meter construction of pavement releases lesser
volume beyond 0.5%, no significant reduction is noticed in hDesign due to emissions with FCC (except for FCC-HSF1) than the emissions released
requirements of minimum possible thickness to avoid faulting. On the with PC. FCC-HSF1 shows a very huge CEP because of a drastic increase
other hand, in the case of FCC-PPF, there is a substantial decrease in in CO2 introduced by 1%HSF in the concrete mix, see Fig. 8. Moreover,
hDesign when PPF dosage is changed from 0.5% to 1%. It is because FCC pavements with 0.5%HSF, 0.5%GF, 1%GF, 0.5%PPF and 1%PPF
flexural strength of FCC-PPF at 0.5% fiber volume does not produce shows 4%, 18%, 17%, 13% and 18% lesser CEP compared to PC,
hDesign closer to the minimum required JPCP thickness. Furthermore, a respectively.
small fiber volume of GF and HSF i.e. 0.5% yields smaller hDesign These results imply the usefulness of fiber-reinforcements to lessen
compared to a high fiber volume of PPF. This again shows that efficiency the economic and environmental impacts of the pavement. Besides that,
of PPF is lower than GF and HSF at the same fiber volume. the use of conventional steel fiber is also being questioned in this
research due to its very negative impact on the performance of pave­
3.3. Economic and environmental impact of pavement with different types ments. The results are favoring the use of PPF and GF to reduce the
of composites environmental and economic impacts of pavement construction.

Costs of all concrete mixes are provided in Table 7. The cost of 4. CONCLUSIONS
pavement (CP) per square meter with different types of composites is
shown in Fig. 7. These results show that HSF is not an economical option In this research, mechanical properties (flexural strength and resid­
as fiber to reduce the design thickness (hDesign) of pavement despite ual strength) of different fibrous concrete composites (FCCs) (produced
showing more efficiency in mechanical performance than other fibers i. using hooked steel fibers (HSF), glass fibers (GF), and polypropylene
e. GF and PPF. This is mainly because, for unit volume fractions, the

6
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

Table 8
Emissions (CO2-kg) of each composite per cubic meter production.
Mix IDs Cement Water Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate SP HSF GF PPF CO2 of Mix
(kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg-CO2/m3) (kg/m3)

PC 303.6 0 30.7 1.19 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 355.5

FCC-0.5%HSF 303.6 0 30.5 1.19 0.006 103.35 0.00 0.00 458.6
FCC-1%HSF 303.6 0 30.3 1.17 0.008 206.70 0.00 0.00 561.8
FCC-0.5%GF 303.6 0 30.5 1.19 0.006 0.00 26.52 0.00 381.8
FCC-1%GF 303.6 0 30.3 1.17 0.008 0.00 53.04 0.00 408.1
FCC-0.5%PPF 303.6 0 30.5 1.19 0.006 0.00 0.00 8.33 363.6
FCC-1%PPF 303.6 0 30.3 1.17 0.008 0.00 0.00 16.65 371.7

Recommendations

This research reveals the importance of fiber type and its dosage to
achieve optimum mechanical, economic and environmental perfor­
mance in pavement construction. Results of cost and carbon footprint
analysis of pavements suggest that GF and PPF are more beneficial
compared to HSF. Further research work is recommended on the anal­
ysis of cost and carbon footprint of pavement with ecofriendly fibers
such as basalt fibers, recycled fibers, organic fibers, etc.

Credit author statement

Babar Ali: Methodology, Data Curation, Writing.

Liaqat Ali: Qureshi: Methodology, Conceptualization, Validation,
Revising.
Rawaz Kurda: Validation, Revising.

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.

Fig. 8. Carbon emissions of pavement (CEP) per square of the meter with References
different concrete composites.
[1] M.F.M. Zain, H.B. Mahmud, A. Ilham, M. Faizal, Prediction of splitting tensile
strength of high-performance concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 32 (2002) 1251–1258.
fibers (PPF)) were evaluated and used in the thickness design calculation [2] B. Ali, L.A. Qureshi, Influence of glass fibers on mechanical and durability
of jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP). Then, the cost of pavement performance of concrete with recycled aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 228
(CP) and carbon emission of pavement (CEP) per square meter was (2019), 116783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116783.
[3] B. Ali, L.A. Qureshi, S.H.A. Shah, S.U. Rehman, I. Hussain, M. Iqbal, A step towards
analyzed for different FCCs. Following are important conclusions of this
durable, ductile and sustainable concrete: simultaneous incorporation of recycled
study: aggregates, glass fiber and fly ash, Construct. Build. Mater. 251 (2020), 118980,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118980.
[4] S. Bentur, A. Mindess, Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites, in: (Modern
1. At the same volume fraction, flexural strength and residual strength
concrete technology), second ed., 2007.
of HSF-FCC is higher than PPF and GF-FCC. 0.5% HSF produces [5] J. Xie, J. Li, Z. Lu, Z. Li, C. Fang, L. Huang, L. Li, Combination effects of rubber and
improvements in flexural strength similar to 1%GF and 1%PPF. silica fume on the fracture behaviour of steel-fibre recycled aggregate concrete,
2. The use of FCCs yields smaller design thicknesses (hDesign) compared Construct. Build. Mater. 203 (2019) 164–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.01.094.
to PC for the same load-carrying capacity. Moreover, no substantial [6] G. Xue, E. Yilmaz, W. Song, S. Cao, Mechanical, flexural and microstructural
reduction in hDesign is noticed when fiber volume of GF or HSF in­ properties of cement-tailings matrix composites: effects of fiber type and dosage,
creases beyond 0.5%. For the given fiber volume, HSF yields smaller Compos. B Eng. 172 (2019) 131–142.
[7] J. Xie, L. Huang, Y. Guo, Z. Li, C. Fang, L. Li, J. Wang, Experimental study on the
design thickness compared to GF and PPF. compressive and flexural behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete modified with
3. Cost of pavement (CP) per unit area calculations show that HSF is not silica fume and fibres, Construct. Build. Mater. 178 (2018) 612–623, https://doi.
economical reinforcement compared to PPF and GF. FCC-0.5%GF, org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.136.
[8] V. Afroughsabet, L. Biolzi, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Influence of double hooked-end steel
FCC-1%GF, FCC-0.5%PPF and FCC-1%PPF can produce 10%, 5%, fibers and slag on mechanical and durability properties of high performance
6% and 8% cheaper pavements, respectively compared to conven­ recycled aggregate concrete, Compos. Struct. 181 (2017) 273–284.
tional PC. [9] 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.
4. FCC application can substantially reduce the carbon emissions of
Environ. 37 (2002) 1361–1367.
pavement (CEP) per unit area associated with materials production. [10] S. Cao, D. Zheng, E. Yilmaz, Z. Yin, G. Xue, F. Yang, Strength development and
Results favor composites incorporating GF and PPF for environ­ microstructure characteristics of artificial concrete pillar considering fiber type and
content effects, Construct. Build. Mater. 256 (2020) 119408.
mentally friendly pavements. FCC pavement with 0.5%HSF, 0.5%
[11] C.D. Atiş, O. Karahan, Properties of steel fiber reinforced fly ash concrete,
GF, 1%GF, 0.5%PPF and 1%PPF shows 4%, 18%, 17%, 13% and 18% Construct. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 392–399.
lesser CEP compared to PC, respectively. However, FCC containing [12] B. Ali, S.S. Raza, I. Hussain, M. Iqbal, Influence of different fibers on mechanical
high fiber volume of HSF leads to high CEP compared to PC. and durability performance of concrete with silica fume, Struct. Concr (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900422.
[13] O. Karahan, C.D. Atiş, The durability properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced
fly ash concrete, Mater. DES 32 (2011) 1044–1049.

7
B. Ali et al. Composites Communications 22 (2020) 100437

[14] V. Afroughsabet, L. Biolzi, P.J.M. Monteiro, The effect of steel and polypropylene [26] M. Afroz, S. Venkatesan, I. Patnaikuni, Effects of hybrid fibers on the development
fibers on the chloride diffusivity and drying shrinkage of high-strength concrete, of high volume fly ash cement composite, Construct. Build. Mater. 215 (2019)
Compos, Part B Eng 139 (2018) 84–96. 984–997, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.083.
[15] B.-T. Huang, J. Yu, J.-Q. Wu, J.-G. Dai, C.K.Y. Leung, Seawater sea-sand engineered [27] B. Ali, L.A. Qureshi, Influence of glass fibers on mechanical and durability
cementitious composites (SS-ECC) for marine and coastal applications, Compos, performance of concrete with recycled aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 228
Commun. Now. (2020). (2019), 116783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116783.
[16] V. Afroughsabet, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Mechanical and durability properties of high- [28] M. Koushkbaghi, M.J. Kazemi, H. Mosavi, E. Mohseni, Acid resistance and
strength concrete containing steel and polypropylene fibers, Construct. Build. durability properties of steel fiber-reinforced concrete incorporating rice husk ash
Mater. 94 (2015) 73–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.051. and recycled aggregate, Construct. Build. Mater. 202 (2019) 266–275.
[17] J. Dhanapal, S. Jeyaprakash, Mechanical properties of mixed steel fiber reinforced [29] F.F. Wafa, Properties & applications of fiber reinforced concrete, Eng. Sci. 2
concrete with the combination of micro and macro steel fibers, Struct, Concrete (1990).
(2019). [30] R. Chan, M.A. Santana, A.M. Oda, R.C. Paniguel, L.B. Vieira, A.D. Figueiredo,
[18] P. Zhang, Q. Li, H. Zhang, Combined effect of polypropylene fiber and silica fume I. Galobardes, Analysis of potential use of fibre reinforced recycled aggregate
on mechanical properties of concrete composite containing fly ash, J. Reinforc. concrete for sustainable pavements, J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 183–191, https://
Plast. Compos. 30 (2011) 1349–1358. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.221.
[19] J. Xie, Z. Zhang, Z. Lu, M. Sun, Coupling effects of silica fume and steel-fiber on the [31] M. Ahmadi, S. Farzin, A. Hassani, M. Motamedi, Mechanical properties of the
compressive behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete after exposure to elevated concrete containing recycled fibers and aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 144
temperature, Construct. Build. Mater. 184 (2018) 752–764, https://doi.org/ (2017) 392–398.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.035. [32] G. Robert, P.E. Packard, Thickness design for concrete highway and street
[20] J. Xie, J. Li, Z. Lu, Z. Li, C. Fang, L. Huang, L. Li, Combination effects of rubber and pavements: Portland cement association (using ACPA thickness design tool street
silica fume on the fracture behaviour of steel-fibre recycled aggregate concrete, pave), 2007.
Construct. Build. Mater. 203 (2019) 164–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [33] ASTM-C150, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM International,
conbuildmat.2019.01.094. West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1520/C0150_C0150M-18.
[21] H. Katkhuda, N. Shatarat, Improving the mechanical properties of recycled [34] ASTM-C33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, en: ASTM
concrete aggregate using chopped basalt fibers and acid treatment, Construct. International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018, www.astm.org.
Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 328–335. [35] ACI-211.1-91, Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
[22] A.B. Kizilkanat, N. Kabay, V. Akyüncü, S. Chowdhury, A.H. Akça, Mechanical Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete, en: ACI Man. Concr. Pract, 2000. Part 1 Mater.
properties and fracture behavior of basalt and glass fiber reinforced concrete: an Gen. Prop. Concr., American Concrete Institute, 2000.
experimental study, Construct. Build. Mater. 100 (2015) 218–224. [36] ASTM-C78, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple
[23] C.S. Das, T. Dey, R. Dandapat, B.B. Mukharjee, J. Kumar, Performance evaluation Beam with Third-Point Loading), en: ASTM Stand., ASTM International, West
of polypropylene fibre reinforced recycled aggregate concrete, Construct. Build. Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018, www.astm.org.
Mater. 189 (2018) 649–659. [37] ASTM-C1609, Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced
[24] S. Sair, B. Mandili, M. Taqi, A. El Bouari, Development of a new eco-friendly Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading), ASTM International, West
composite material based on gypsum reinforced with a mixture of cork fibre and Conshohocken, PA, 2019. www.astm.org.
cardboard waste for building thermal insulation, Compos. Commun 16 (2019) [38] R. Kurda, J.D. Silvestre, J. de Brito, Life cycle assessment of concrete made with
20–24. high volume of recycled concrete aggregates and fly ash, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
[25] S.S. Raza, L.A. Qureshi, B. Ali, A. Raza, M.M. Khan, H. Salahuddin, Mechanical 139 (2018) 407–417.
properties of hybrid steel–glass fiber-reinforced reactive powder concrete after [39] S.V. Joshi, L.T. Drzal, A.K. Mohanty, S. Arora, Are natural fiber composites
exposure to elevated temperatures, Arabian J. Sci. Eng. (2020), https://doi.org/ environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos. Part A
10.1007/s13369-020-04435-4. Appl. Sci. Manuf 35 (2004) 371–376.