Next Article in Journal
Bearing Capacity and Deformation of Micropiles Considering Plastic Hinge
Next Article in Special Issue
Behavior of Self-Compacting Concrete Cylinders Internally Confined with Various Types of Composite Grids
Previous Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Factors of Urban Green Space in Texas (2001–2021): A Multi-Source Geospatial Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/buildings15071167
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures with Fly Ash and Basalt Fibres Under Corrosion: A Life Cycle Cost Analysis

by
Abdelrahman Abushanab
and
Vanissorn Vimonsatit
*
School of Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(7), 1167; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071167
Submission received: 3 March 2025 / Revised: 26 March 2025 / Accepted: 31 March 2025 / Published: 2 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Characteristics and Long-Term Durability of Cementitious Materials and Reinforced Concrete Structures)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Recent investigations have shown that the mechanical and durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete can be enhanced using fly ash (FA) and structural fibres. However, the financial viability of combining these products in concrete has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, this study assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of using recycled concrete aggregates (RCA), FA, and basalt fibres (BF) simultaneously in high-rise reinforced concrete buildings exposed to corrosive environments. A life cycle cost analysis was conducted using five variables, two design alternatives, and twelve design scenarios. The analysis followed ISO 15686–5:2017 using a discount rate of 0.5% and a construction-to-material cost ratio of 150%. The components considered in the life cycle cost model included materials, construction, maintenance, and disposal. The results demonstrated that employing RCA, FA, and BF in combination in concrete buildings located near the ocean achieved approximately 21% cost savings compared to buildings made with conventional materials over a lifespan of 50 years. The maintenance component exhibited the most significant cost savings, with an average reduction of about 76% in the maintenance costs for all buildings utilising RCA, FA, and BF. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the proposed building with RCA, FA, and BF remained more cost-effective than the conventional concrete building, even with an increasing RCA-to-natural-aggregate price ratio, construction-to-material cost ratio, and increasing the discount rate to 200%, 250%, and 10%, respectively.

1. Introduction

Concrete is widely used in the construction industry, with an annual production of 9 billion tonnes worldwide. The demand for concrete is expected to double over the next quarter-century due to ongoing population growth and urbanisation [1]. Among the materials overconsumed in concrete applications are natural aggregates (NA), which constitute 55% to 80% of the concrete’s volume [2]. Currently, the global annual production of NA surpasses 48 billion tonnes and is projected to increase further to meet the high demand for concrete applications. The overexploitation of NA in concrete applications not only depletes the NA resources but also generates 13% to 20% of the carbon emissions in the concrete industry [2]. Thus, researchers have recently focused on replacing NA with sustainable alternatives for concrete applications.
Meanwhile, the construction industry globally generates about 3 billion tonnes of concrete waste each year, the majority of which ends up in landfills, raising concerns about the expansion of landfill sites and their consequent degradation of groundwater systems [3,4]. Therefore, researchers have explored the effectiveness of converting concrete waste into recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) for concrete applications to limit the cost and environmental impact of landfills and the overconsumption of NA [4,5,6,7,8]. Huda and Alam [5] and Wang et al. [6] demonstrated that utilising RCA in concrete mixes decreased the workability of concrete by 10% to 25%. In addition, Wang et al. [6] observed a reduction from 40% to 45% in the mechanical properties of concrete with RCA. Ali et al. [4] found that the use of 50% and 100% RCA increased chloride penetration by about 15% and 38%, respectively. On the other hand, Khan et al. [7] demonstrated that the incorporation of construction waste in concrete applications decreased the global warming potential by 18%.
The drop in the mechanical and durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) has hindered the widespread use of RCA in structural applications. Accordingly, investigations have been carried out on the improvement of the properties of RAC using supplementary cementitious materials [9,10,11,12,13]. The incorporation of supplementary cementitious materials promotes the secondary reaction with portlandite to produce calcium–silicate–hydrate gel. The secondary reaction hydrates enhance the concrete matrix and the weak interfacial transition zones, thereby improving the mechanical and durability properties of RAC [9,10,11,14]. Fly ash (FA), which is a by-product of coal power plants, is one of the most common supplementary cementitious materials and is available in abundant quantities worldwide. The incorporation of FA in concrete mixes enhances the long-term strength and durability characteristics of concrete [15,16]. From a sustainability perspective, previous studies demonstrated that the partial replacement of cement with up to 25% FA reduced carbon emissions by 8% to 27% [17,18,19]. Moreover, the integration of 25% FA and 100% RCA decreased the global warming potential by an average of 9.5% [19]. In addition, FA improves the workability of concrete, which consequently minimises the cost of superplasticisers [11,20,21]. Previous studies also demonstrated that FA enhances the durability of reinforced concrete (RC) elements under corrosive environments [22,23]. Abushanab and Alnahhal [24] reported that replacing 20% of cement with FA decreased the mass loss of steel bars by 61% at a corrosion level of 10%. Similarly, Abd El Fattah et al. [23] found that FA decreased chloride diffusion in RC elements.
Despite the benefits of FA on the long-term strength and durability of RAC, a drawback remains regarding the early-age strength of concrete with FA [25]. Therefore, recent studies have investigated the effectiveness of the simultaneous incorporation of structural fibres and FA in RAC [4,25,26,27,28]. The employment of fibres into RAC with FA interconnects the cracks and weak interfacial transition zones, thereby enhancing the matrix and the properties of plain and RC elements [4,25,26,27,28]. Ali et al. [4] investigated the combined effect of 20% FA and 0.5% glass fibres on the mechanical and durability properties of concrete. The authors [4] demonstrated that the combined use of FA and glass fibres provided a better enhancement of the mechanical properties of RAC compared to the individual use of FA or glass fibres. Likewise, Ali et al. [25] found that the incorporation of 1% steel fibres and 15% FA into RAC improved the compressive strength and flexural strength by 13% to 23% and by 73% to 78%, respectively. Furthermore, Qureshi et al. [26] showed that the addition of 1% steel fibres resulted in an insignificant improvement in the chloride penetration of RAC. However, the combination of 1% steel fibres and 20% FA decreased the chloride penetration by an average of 42% at 28 and 90 days compared to the reference mix [26]. Thus far, steel fibres are the most commonly used fibres in the construction industry. However, steel fibres remain susceptible to corrosion when exposed to harsh environments. Accordingly, basalt fibres (BF) have recently been developed as a sustainable alternative to steel fibres. BF are characterised by a higher resistance to chemicals and thermal environments than glass fibres, and they have a higher strain at failure than carbon fibres. In addition, the weight of the BF is three times lower than that of the steel fibres [29,30,31]. Moreover, basalt is abundantly available worldwide, with low mining costs [32].
The above literature highlighted the environmental benefits and feasibility of using RCA, FA, and BF in concrete applications. However, for the widespread use of such materials in the concrete industry, it is essential to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of their combined use in RC structures exposed to harsh environments. The cost performance of concrete can be investigated through various techniques, with life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) being one of the primary methods for concrete applications [33]. According to ISO 15686–5:2017 [33], the LCCA is a tool to measure the economic feasibility of a material throughout its operational period. The LCCA in the construction industry considers the costs of materials, construction, operation, maintenance, and disposal. The economic benefits of the individual use of RCA, FA, and fibres in the construction industry have been investigated in numerous studies [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Tam and Tam [34] showed in a case study that implementing a recycling scheme in the concrete industry results in an annual net benefit of USD 30,916,000 worldwide. Makul [35] performed a case study on the use of RCA in high-performance concrete in Thailand. The authors [35] revealed that the durability of RAC increased with the addition of FA, and consequently the cost of RAC decreased. Ohemeng and Ekolu [36] reported that the production of RCA was 40% lower in cost compared to that of NA. On the other hand, Panesar et al. [37] demonstrated that concrete with 25% and 35% FA exhibited a slight decrease in the initial cost. However, Reiner and Rens [41] noticed that the life cycle cost (LCC) of concrete decreased by 20% when FA was employed in concrete. Abushanab and Alnahhal [22] showed that the cost savings associated with using FA in RAC primarily resulted from reduced maintenance costs. Shin and Kim [38] and Kurda et al. [40] also experienced cost savings when FA was used in RAC. Jamora et al. [39] reported that the travel distance was an influential factor in the cost savings of concrete with coal ash. Yang et al. [42] investigated the influence of adding GFs at different ratios (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%) into RAC under 150 freeze–thaw cycles and over a lifespan of 18 years. The authors [42] showed that the best performance was achieved at a volume fraction of 1% GF, with an improvement in the compressive strength of 21.35% and a reduction in the mass loss of 1.1% compared to conventional concrete. Consequently, the mix with 1% GF exhibited the most cost-effective during the study period. On the economic benefits of BF, Asadi et al. [44] reported that producing sheet moulding compounds with BF resulted in lower weight and costs compared to those made with glass fibres.
The existing literature demonstrated the effectiveness of improving the characteristics of RAC by incorporating FA and fibres. While most of the available studies focused on the experimental and analytical assessments of the effect of integrating FA and fibres in RAC mixes, a notable research gap remains on the economic benefits of this combination. Therefore, the innovative aspect of this study lies in evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of employing RCA, FA, and BF in combination in high-rise buildings under corrosive environments over a 50-year period. The results of this study are expected to promote the employment of RAC enhanced with FA and BF in structural applications.

2. Materials and Methods

The LCCA of the simultaneous use of RCA, FA, and BF in high-rise RC buildings susceptible to corrosion was carried out in this study. The LCCA was performed over a period of 50 years. The analysis covered 2 design alternatives and 12 buildings in 5 sequential steps. In the first step, a conventional building with natural ingredients and an alternative building with RCA, FA, and BF combined were selected. The second step involved identifying various scenarios of the buildings with different areas and numbers of floors. The third step outlined the concrete constituents of the reference and proposed mixes. The fourth step provided the LCC of all buildings investigated, considering the costs of the materials, construction, maintenance, and disposal. A sensitivity analysis was performed in the fifth step to assess the impact of different parameters on the LCC of the buildings. A summary of the LCC methodology is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The following subsections provide further explanations of the methodology presented in Figure 1.

2.1. Design Alternatives

The LCCA of this study explored 2 design alternatives with 5 variables for the RC elements in high-rise buildings, each corresponding to a specific concrete mix, as demonstrated in Table 1. The design alternatives followed a three-digit designation system of XYZ, where X was the type of coarse aggregates used (N for NA and R for RCA), Y was the replacement ratio of FA (C for 0% and F for 20%), and Z was the volume fractions of the BF (P for 0% and B for 0.2%). Alternative NCP was the reference design with NA, 100% cement, and 0% BF. In the proposed alternative RFB, RCA entirely replaced NA, 20% of the cement was substituted with FA, and 0.2% volume fractions of BF were added to the concrete mix. The rationale behind the proposed alternative RFB was to (1) reduce the overexploitation of NA, (2) minimise the construction waste in landfills, (3) decrease the carbon emissions and costs associated with cement production and landfills, (4) improve the corrosion resistance of the RC elements by using the 20% FA, and (5) strengthen the matrix of the RAC by BF to compensate for the loss in the mechanical properties due to the reduction in cement [4,45,46].

2.2. Design Scenarios

The selection of appropriate amounts of concrete and reinforcement is a crucial step in establishing a safe and cost-effective design for RC structures [47]. The structural design and quantity takeoff needed for the LCCA of the reference and proposed alternatives (NCP and RFB) were derived from the research by Foraboschi et al. [48], who examined the embodied energy of multi-storey buildings. The authors [48] assessed 6 design scenarios for the buildings with varying numbers of floors and gross areas. The quantities of steel and concrete in the considered design scenarios are provided in Table 2. The different design scenarios were analysed to ensure that the LCC of the buildings was not influenced by the number of floors and areas, and cost saving was achieved even with larger buildings. The concrete compressive strength of the buildings was set at 40 MPa, which is commonly used for high-rise buildings [43]. The buildings were analysed by the authors [48] using finite element modelling with a uniform dead load of 2.5 kN/m2 and live load of 3 kN/m2 across the floor area, an external facade load of 4 kN/m along the perimeter beams, self-weight, and wind load. The wind load was analysed according to the guidelines of Eurocode [49]. Moreover, the authors [48] did not consider the seismic loads in their analysis due to their negligible effect on tall buildings compared to the wind load. The safety of the buildings was ensured by limiting the maximum drift due to the wind load to 1/400 of the height and the maximum vertical displacement due to live loads to 1/400 of the span length [48].

2.3. Concrete Mixes

The concrete mix with a compressive strength of 40 MPa was selected for the NCP with the following ingredients: 186 kg of water, 463 kg of cement, 530 kg of fine aggregates, and 1150 kg of coarse aggregates. Alternative RFB was designed using recyclable products (RCA and FA). However, the literature revealed that using RCA and FA in concrete mixes reduced the mechanical properties of concrete [4,25]. The variation in the mechanical properties of both alternatives contradicts the principle of the LCCA, which requires that all alternatives have comparable performance. Therefore, the following challenges and remedial measures were taken for the concrete mix of alternative RFB:
1.
RCA were characterised by high cracks and pores, which increased their water absorption, and, in turn, decreased the fresh slump of RAC [50]. To address this deficiency, both types of aggregates (NA and RCA) were planned to be immersed in water for 24 h to achieve a saturated surface dry condition. This ensures the uniformity of the water absorption of both aggregate types and reduces the loss of slump of RAC [51].
2.
The use of 100% RCA and 20% FA was expected to reduce the compressive strength of concrete by 10% to 30% [4,51]. Nonetheless, Du et al. [52] and Zhang et al. [53] reported that the compressive strength of RAC was improved by about 23% and 61%, respectively, when 0.2% volume fractions of BF were added to RAC. Therefore, incorporating BF into RAC with FA mixes could offset the compressive strength loss due to RCA and FA.
3.
The replacement of 20% of OPC with FA could improve the slump of fibre-reinforced concrete. Therefore, no additional superplasticisers would be needed to compensate for the slump loss due to the inclusion of BF.
4.
The RCA were planned to be incorporated using the volume replacement method to ensure an equal volume of the concrete mixes of both alternatives. Accordingly, the difference in density between NA and RCA was considered in calculating the quantity of RCA for alternative RFB.

2.4. Life Cycle Cost Model

The LCCA is a tool used to measure the economic feasibility of a product over a specific lifespan [33]. The LCC model developed in this study included the costs of materials, construction, maintenance, and disposal. Figure 2 provides a summary of the components of the LCC model. The calculations of the LCC of all design scenarios were carried out in accordance with ISO 15686–5:2017 [33], considering both alternatives (NCP and RFB). The most economical option was identified as the one with the lowest LCC over a 50-year operating period. The details of the components of the LCC model are provided in the following subsections.

2.4.1. Materials

The costs of the materials required to perform the LCCA of all design scenarios are obtained from different sources and listed in Table 3. The main materials considered in this analysis include the concrete, aggregates, cementitious binders, steel reinforcement, and transportation. The prices shown in Table 3 have been adjusted to reflect the inflation rate in the United States for the year 2024 [54]. The following were considered in the prices of the items:
1.
The price of concrete includes the costs for aggregates, sand, cement, and water.
2.
The price of the steel bars includes the costs of bending activities.
3.
The strength of the steel bars is assumed to be 420 MPa.
4.
The type of cement used is Type I.
The cost of the concrete mix of alternative RFB was calculated based on market prices with modifications related to RCA, FA, and BF. That is, the costs of the NA and 20% cement were substituted with those of RCA and FA, respectively. In addition, an extra cost for BF was added to the manufacturing cost of concrete. The literature reported that the transportation costs of NA and RCA may vary. Paranhos et al. [55] reported that the transportation cost of RCA is linearly proportional to the distance travelled. The authors [55] estimated that the difference between the transportation costs of NA and RCA is 10 USD/tonne over a distance of 100 km. In addition, the cost benefits of RCA arise from the savings of mining and transportation from queries to plants. However, this is not always the case due to the varying treatment methods of RCA and the different policies across countries [36]. To account for such variation, the sensitivity analysis included four different cost ratios of RCA-to-NA (50%, 100%, 150%, and 200%).
Table 3. Costs of materials needed for manufacturing the buildings.
Table 3. Costs of materials needed for manufacturing the buildings.
ItemCostReference
Concrete207 USD/m3* RSMeans [56]
Steel Bars1.31 USD/kg RSMeans [56]
NA18.81 USD/tonneDavis and McGinnis [57]
RCA14.09 USD/tonneDavis and McGinnis [57]
Cement125.70 USD/tonne Shwekat and Wu [58]
FA66.14 USD/tonneShwekat and Wu [58]
BF8.70 USD/kgLocal Supplier
Demolition158.03 USD/m3 of concreteRSMeans [56]
Landfill0.12 USD/kgRSMeans [56]
Resell of Steel Scrap0.249 USD/kgRSMeans [56]
* RSMeans, Gordian, Greenville, SC, USA.

2.4.2. Construction

The construction costs of RC buildings include the expenses for the hiring and transportation of staff, the renting and transportation of equipment, the fabrication and assembly of formwork and steel reinforcement, the casting of concrete, and the management of waste generated during construction. Such expenditures were estimated as a percentage of the material costs [22,59,60]. In the LCCA, the construction costs of each design scenario were assumed to be 150% of the material costs. In addition, the sensitivity analysis included 5 construction-to-materials percentages (50%, 100%, 150%, 200%, and 250%) to account for different construction costs of the buildings worldwide. These percentages were selected to examine multiple financial scenarios, from minimal construction costs (50% of the material costs) to extremely high construction costs (250% of the material costs [56]). The construction costs rarely exceeded 250% of the material costs.

2.4.3. Maintenance

The maintenance costs are the expenses related to the periodic inspection and repair works to sustain the structural integrity of the buildings during their service period. Although regular maintenance should be carried out to ensure the serviceability of the buildings, this study focused only on the repair works due to damage caused by steel corrosion.
The expenses of the repair of the RC structures were expressed as a percentage of the costs of the materials and construction [59,60]. The repair costs included the expenses for purchasing new materials, removing and disposing of the defective materials, and installing the new materials. In the LCCA of this study, it was assumed that 10% of the total area would require repairs due to corrosion damage, with 50% of the materials being replaced [60]. In addition, the costs of manpower and equipment were assumed to be 200% of the construction cost [59].
The service life, which is the duration during which a building can function without structural deficiency, was estimated for alternative NCP using Life-365 software (version 2.2.3.1) [61], which is developed by the American Concrete Institute. Life-365 calculated the chloride diffusion using Fick’s second law. The software employed a finite difference method to solve the diffusion equations. Life-365 (version 2.2.3.1) was validated in numerous studies [62,63,64]. It was assumed that the buildings were located 800 m from the ocean, where the chloride concentration reached 0.6% within 15 years. In addition, the concrete cover was set at 40 mm.
The results from the Life-365 software (version 2.2.3.1) [61] indicated that alternative NCP required maintenance due to corrosion damage every 10 years. Cabrera [65] found that concrete with 30% FA had a 3 times lower corrosion initiation time than conventional concrete. However, it is important to note that such a high percentage of FA often leads to a decrease in the compressive strength of concrete, which affects the structural performance of alternative RFB. The reduction in the strength of alternative RFB also contradicts the basis of LCCA, which requires the investigated alternatives to have comparable performance. By contrast, Qureshi et al. [26] reported that utilising 20% of FA in steel-fibre-reinforced concrete reduced chloride penetration by about 42%. A similar improvement was also reported by Abushanab and Alnahhal [24], who demonstrated that RC elements with 20% FA had 82% and 61% lower steel mass loss at corrosion ratios of 2% and 10%, respectively. Therefore, the service life of alternative RFB is assumed to be 30 years in the LCCA. Moreover, it is important to note that BF are non-metallic fibres made from basalt rock and do not require incineration or complex chemistry in their manufacturing processes [46], thereby enhancing their chemical stability and sustainability over the service life. This implies that the BF would remain stable during the operational period of the buildings.

2.4.4. Disposal

All buildings are expected to be demolished after 50 years of operation. The disposal costs of the LCC model include the expenses of the demolition of the buildings, the landfill of waste, and the management of the scrap items. The costs of these items are provided in Table 3. Steel reinforcement is well known for its recyclability, with a substantial portion of its original weight being convertible into new steel at similar or higher grades [66,67,68]. Therefore, the LCCA of this study considers reselling 90% of the steel weight as scrap, while the rest is to be disposed of in landfills.

2.5. Calculations of the Life Cycle Cost

As per ISO 15686–5:2017 [33], LCC is the sum of all expenses of a product throughout its operational period, discounted to present values. The mathematical formula of LCC is presented in Equation (1).
L C C = ∑ t = 0 T C t ( 1 + d ) t
where t is a particular year, T is the total operational period, d is the discount rate of future expenses, and C t is the total expenses at year t, which can be calculated as per Equation (2):
C t = C m + C c + C r + C d
Here, C m , C c , C r , and C d are the expenses spent in year t for materials, construction, repair, and disposal, respectively.
The discount rate, which is the rate to discount future expenses to present values, plays a significant role in estimating the LCC of the alternatives. In this study, the discount rate was set at 0.5%, as per the White House Office of Management and Budget for long-term investments (30 years or more) in 2022 [69]. However, due to the recent global increase in inflation rates, the discount rate has fluctuated over time and increased to as high as 7% in Australia [70]. Therefore, this study conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of 11 discount rates (0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, and 10%) on the LCC of the buildings.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effect of Concrete Mix and Number of Floors

The costs per square metre of all design scenarios over a 50-year period are presented in Table 4. In addition, the variation in the total expenses of each design scenario after 50 years is visualised in Figure 3. The costs presented in Table 4 and Figure 3 for each design scenario were calculated using a construction-to-material cost ratio of 150%, without applying a discount rate. The results demonstrated that employing RCA, FA, and BF in concrete negligibly reduced the initial cost of the buildings, as shown in year 0 in Table 4. The cost savings ranged between 0.86% for RFB-50 and 1.14% for RFB-20, compared to their counterparts with alternative NCP. It could also be seen from Table 4 and Figure 3 that the total costs increased as the amount of concrete per floor area increased. That is, the design scenarios NCP-50 and RFB-50, which have the highest concrete-to-area of 0.36 m3/m2, exhibited the highest total costs of 727.3 and 567.8 USD/m2, whilst scenarios NCP-20 and RFB-20, with the lowest concrete-to-area of 0.26 m3/m2, had the lowest total costs of 551.1 and 429.4 USD/m2, respectively. Whereas the maintenance costs of the buildings with alternative RFB were comparable to those made with NCP (ex. 51.9 USD/m2 for RFB-50 and 52.0 USD/m2 for NCP-50), the overall cost savings of the buildings with RFB was due to the reduced periodic maintenance, regardless of the number of floors. Buildings with alternative NCP required maintenance every 10 years, while those with RFB needed maintenance every 30 years (Table 4). The reduced maintenance costs of the buildings with alternative RFB resulted in a cost saving of approximately 22% for all buildings. The same cost saving achieved by the RFB buildings implied that the number of floors did not affect the savings achieved by incorporating RCA, FA, and BF into concrete mixes. These findings are consistent with other research studies, which reported that the cost savings obtained from recyclable products are due to remedial measures [2,22,37,71].

3.2. LCCA

The results of the LCCA of all design scenarios are demonstrated in Table 5 in terms of the costs of materials, construction, maintenance, and LCC. The LCC of all buildings is also presented in Figure 4. The analysis was conducted using a construction-to-material cost ratio of 150 and discount rate of 0.5%. It could be inferred from the results that the LCC of the materials showed an insignificant influence on the overall LCC savings of the design scenarios with RFB. This could be seen in column 2 of Table 5 (materials), in which the LCC savings due to the incorporation of RCA, FA, and BF did not exceed 3% for any of the design scenarios. These results are in line with the findings of Panesar et al. [37] and Martínez-Lage et al. [71], who also reported that the use of recyclable products had an insignificant impact on the initial cost of concrete. Despite the negligible effect of the materials’ costs on the LCC, the buildings with alternative RFB exhibited a longer service life (30 years) than conventional buildings with NCP (10 years). This is ascribed to the utilisation of FA and BF, which increased the service lives and corrosion resistance while maintaining the strength properties of the buildings [35,40,52,53,65]. Consequently, the buildings with RFB exhibited a lower LCC for maintenance by an average of 75.7%. Overall, all buildings with alternative RFB recorded LCC savings of about 21.3% compared to those made with NCP at the end of the study period (50 years).

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted in this study to investigate the impact of different RCA-to-NA price ratios (50%, 100%, 150%, and 200%), construction-to-material price ratios (50%, 100%, 150%, 200%, and 250%), and discount rates (0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, and 10%) on the LCC of the buildings. For this purpose, two alternatives were considered: NCP and RFB. The average of the concrete volume (0.32 m3/m2) and reinforcement weight (50.45 kg/m2) of all design scenarios were assigned to both alternatives in the calculation of their life cycle costs. The sensitivity analysis related to the costs of RCA (Figure 5a) and construction (Figure 5b) was performed using a discount rate of 0.5%. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis of the discount rate (Figure 5c) was conducted using a construction-to-material price ratio of 150%.
Figure 5a shows that the price of RCA had an insignificant effect on the overall LCC of the alternatives, even with an RCA-to-NA ratio of 200%. This finding supports the results of the LCCA, which demonstrated that the costs of the concrete mix ingredients had a negligible impact on the LCC of the buildings. Similarly, Figure 5b reveals that increasing the construction costs increased the LCC of both alternatives, with RFB being more cost-effective than NCP at all construction-to-material price ratios. This implies that the LCC of the proposed alternative is not affected by the construction-to-material price ratios. Regarding the influence of the discount rate on the LCC of the buildings, it is evident that the discount rate significantly affects the LCC of the buildings, regardless of the design alternative (Figure 5c). The savings in the LCC of alternative RFB decreased from 22% at a discount rate of 0% to 8% at a discount rate of 10%. The decline in the LCC savings was attributed to the devaluation of the money with time, wherein the value of the money spent on the repair of NCP or saved from RCB diminished by the end of the service lives of the buildings. Nevertheless, alternative RFB remained more economically viable than NCP, even at a discount rate of 10%.

4. Conclusions

This study evaluated the economic benefits of utilising RCA, FA, and BF in structural buildings exposed to marine environments using LCCA over 50 years. The analysis was conducted on 12 design scenarios, featuring two concrete mixes (NCP and RFB) and six different numbers of floors (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 floors).
The LCCA revealed that alternative RFB was more cost-effective than the conventional alternative NCP in all design scenarios. The cost savings of the buildings with the proposed alternative RFB were primarily due to their enhanced corrosion resistance, which extended the maintenance period from 10 to 30 years. Based on a discount rate of 0.5%, construction costs of 150% of the materials costs, and a study period of 50 years, the buildings with alternative RFB exhibited average cost savings of 75.7% and 21.3% for the maintenance and overall LCC, respectively. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis showed that alternative RFB consistently achieved more savings compared to the reference alternative, even at a very high RCA-to-NA price ratio, construction-to-maintenance cost ratio, and discount rate of 200%, 250%, and 10%, respectively, implying the cost benefits of combining RCA, FA, and BF in concrete applications under different scenarios. The sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that RCA prices and construction costs were insensitive to the LCCA of the buildings. By contrast, the discount rate had a substantial influence on the LCCA. The cost savings decreased from 22% at a discount rate of 0% to 8% at a discount rate of 10%. Nevertheless, the sensitivity analysis revealed that alternative RFB outperformed alternative NCP at all discount rates, even at extremely high rates like 10%.
Finally, this study demonstrated the long-term economic benefits of utilising RCA, FA, and BF in concrete applications. However, the findings achieved in this study are solely for the RC buildings investigated and are based on the considered materials, construction, maintenance, and disposal costs. Future studies are recommended to conduct an additional LCCA for different buildings, design scenarios, and environments to validate and generalise the cost benefits of RCA, FA, and BF in concrete applications. Further studies should also be carried out to explore the impact of other supplementary cementitious materials and design techniques.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A. and V.V.; methodology, A.A.; software, A.A.; validation, V.V.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.A. and V.V.; data curation, A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A. and V.V.; visualisation, A.A.; supervision, V.V.; project administration, V.V.; funding acquisition, V.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The first author is a recipient of the International Research Training Program Scholarship by the Commonwealth Government (allocation number: 20246625). The support enabled this research to be conducted and is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
NANatural aggregates
RCARecycled concrete aggregates
RACRecycled aggregate concrete
FAFly ash
RCReinforced concrete
BFBasalt fibres
LCCALife cycle cost analysis
LCCLife cycle cost

References

  1. Aprianti, S.E. A Huge Number of Artificial Waste Material Can Be Supplementary Cementitious Material (SCM) for Concrete Production—A Review Part II. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 4178–4194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alqahtani, F.K.; Abotaleb, I.S.; ElMenshawy, M. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Lightweight Green Concrete Utilizing Recycled Plastic Aggregates. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Paldyna, J.; Krasnodebska-Ostrega, B.; Kregielewska, K.; Kowalska, J.; Jedynak, L.; Golimowski, J.; Grobelski, T.; Farbiszewska-Kiczma, J.; Farbiszewska, T. The Assessment of Environmental Pollution Caused by Mining and Metallurgy Wastes from Highly Polluted Post-Industrial Regions in Southern Poland. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 68, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  4. Ali, B.; Qureshi, L.A.; Shah, S.H.A.; Rehman, S.U.; Hussain, I.; Iqbal, M. A Step towards Durable, Ductile and Sustainable Concrete: Simultaneous Incorporation of Recycled Aggregates, Glass Fiber and Fly Ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 118980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Huda, S.B.; Shahria Alam, M. Mechanical and Freeze-Thaw Durability Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Made with Recycled Coarse Aggregate. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 04015003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, Y.; Hughes, P.; Niu, H.; Fan, Y. A New Method to Improve the Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete: Composite Addition of Basalt Fiber and Nano-Silica. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khan, S.A.; Jassim, M.; Ilcan, H.; Sahin, O.; Bayer, İ.R.; Sahmaran, M.; Koc, M. 3D Printing of Circular Materials: Comparative Environmental Analysis of Materials and Construction Techniques. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lv, H.; Xiong, Z.; Li, H.; Liu, J.; Xu, G.; Chen, H. Investigating the Mechanical Properties and Water Permeability of Recycled Pervious Concrete Using Three Typical Gradation Schemes. Buildings 2025, 15, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kurad, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Ahmed, H. Effect of Incorporation of High Volume of Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash on the Strength and Global Warming Potential of Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 485–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ali, B.; Qureshi, L.A.; Nawaz, M.; Aslam, H.M.U. Combined Influence of Fly Ash and Recycled Coarse Aggregates on Strength and Economic Performance of Concrete. Civ. Eng. J. 2019, 5, 832–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kou, S.; Poon, C.; Agrela, F. Comparisons of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Concretes Prepared with the Addition of Different Mineral Admixtures. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 788–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dilbas, H.; Şimşek, M.; Çakır, Ö. An Investigation on Mechanical and Physical Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete (RAC) with and without Silica Fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 61, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jaglan, A.; Singh, R.R. Recycled Aggregate Concrete Incorporating GGBS and Polypropylene Fibers Using RSM and Machine Learning Techniques. Buildings 2024, 15, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kurda, R.; de Brito, J.; Silvestre, J.D. Water Absorption and Electrical Resistivity of Concrete with Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 95, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Faraj, R.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Daraei, A. Mechanical, Fracture and Durability Properties of Self-Compacting High Strength Concrete Containing Recycled Polypropylene Plastic Particles. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hefni, Y.; El Zaher, Y.A.; Wahab, M.A. Influence of Activation of Fly Ash on the Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 728–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jiménez, C.; Barra, M.; Josa, A.; Valls, S. LCA of Recycled and Conventional Concretes Designed Using the Equivalent Mortar Volume and Classic Methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Turk, J.; Cotič, Z.; Mladenovič, A.; Šajna, A. Environmental Evaluation of Green Concretes versus Conventional Concrete by Means of LCA. Waste Manag. 2015, 45, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sabău, M.; Bompa, D.V.; Silva, L.F.O. Comparative Carbon Emission Assessments of Recycled and Natural Aggregate Concrete: Environmental Influence of Cement Content. Geosci. Front. 2021, 12, 101235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kurda, R.; de Brito, J.; Silvestre, J.D. Influence of Recycled Aggregates and High Contents of Fly Ash on Concrete Fresh Properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 84, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nawaz, M.A.; Qureshi, L.A.; Ali, B.; Raza, A. Mechanical, Durability and Economic Performance of Concrete Incorporating Fly Ash and Recycled Aggregates. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abushanab, A.; Alnahhal, W. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Sustainable Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Treated Wastewater, Recycled Concrete Aggregates, and Fly Ash. Results Eng. 2023, 20, 101565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abd El Fattah, A.; Al-Duais, I.; Riding, K.; Thomas, M. Field Evaluation of Corrosion Mitigation on Reinforced Concrete in Marine Exposure Conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 165, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abushanab, A.; Alnahhal, W. Bond Strength of Corroded Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete with Treated Wastewater and Fly Ash. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ali, B.; Raza, S.S.; Kurda, R.; Alyousef, R. Synergistic Effects of Fly Ash and Hooked Steel Fibers on Strength and Durability Properties of High Strength Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Qureshi, L.A.; Ali, B.; Ali, A. Combined Effects of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (Silica Fume, GGBS, Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash) and Steel Fiber on the Hardened Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dong, C.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, C.; Jiang, T.; Guo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Lin, S. Fresh and Hardened Properties of Recycled Plastic Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete Made with Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Fly Ash, Slag, Silica Fume. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 62, 105384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. El-Hassan, H.; Hussein, A.; Medljy, J.; El-Maaddawy, T. Performance of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Alkali-Activated Slag-Fly Ash Blended Concrete Incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Dune Sand. Buildings 2021, 11, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sohail, M.G.; Alnahhal, W.; Taha, A.; Abdelaal, K. Sustainable Alternative Aggregates: Characterization and Influence on Mechanical Behavior of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 255, 119365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Katkhuda, H.; Shatarat, N. Improving the Mechanical Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Using Chopped Basalt Fibers and Acid Treatment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 140, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dong, J.F.; Wang, Q.Y.; Guan, Z.W. Material Properties of Basalt Fibre Reinforced Concrete Made with Recycled Earthquake Waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 130, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; He, Y.; Huang, G.; Li, J.; Niu, Z.; Gao, B. A Review on Durability of Basalt Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2022, 225, 109519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. ISO 15686-5: 2017; Buildings and Constructed Assets–Service-Life Planning–Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  34. Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, C.M. Economic Comparison of Recycling Over-Ordered Fresh Concrete: A Case Study Approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 52, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Makul, N. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Production of Ready-Mixed High-Performance Concrete Made with Recycled Concrete Aggregate: A Case Study in Thailand. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ohemeng, E.A.; Ekolu, S.O. Comparative Analysis on Costs and Benefits of Producing Natural and Recycled Concrete Aggregates: A South African Case Study. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 13, e00450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Panesar, D.K.; Kanraj, D.; Abualrous, Y. Effect of Transportation of Fly Ash: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 99, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shin, B.; Kim, S. CO2 Emission and Construction Cost Reduction Effect in Cases of Recycled Aggregate Utilized for Nonstructural Building Materials in South Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 360, 131962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jamora, J.B.; Gudia, S.E.L.; Go, A.W.; Giduquio, M.B.; Loretero, M.E. Potential CO2 Reduction and Cost Evaluation in Use and Transport of Coal Ash as Cement Replacement: A Case in the Philippines. Waste Manag. 2020, 103, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kurda, R.; de Brito, J.; Silvestre, J.D. CONCRETop Method: Optimization of Concrete with Various Incorporation Ratios of Fly Ash and Recycled Aggregates in Terms of Quality Performance and Life-Cycle Cost and Environmental Impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 642–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reiner, M.; Rens, K. High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete: Analysis and Application. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2006, 11, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yang, W.; Huang, Y.; Li, C.; Tang, Z.; Quan, W.; Xiong, X.; He, J.; Wu, W. Damage Prediction and Long-Term Cost Performance Analysis of Glass Fiber Recycled Concrete under Freeze-Thaw Cycles. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2024, 21, e03795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Younis, A.; Ebead, U.; Judd, S. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Structural Concrete Using Seawater, Recycled Concrete Aggregate, and GFRP Reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 175, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Asadi, A.; Baaij, F.; Mainka, H.; Rademacher, M.; Thompson, J.; Kalaitzidou, K. Basalt Fibers as a Sustainable and Cost-Effective Alternative to Glass Fibers in Sheet Molding Compound (SMC). Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 123, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lu, L. Optimal Replacement Ratio of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Balancing Mechanical Performance with Sustainability: A Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yang, W.; Liu, L.; Wu, W.; Zhang, K.; Xiong, X.; Li, C.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, H. A Review of the Mechanical Properties and Durability of Basalt Fiber Recycled Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 412, 134882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bekdaş, G.; Nigdeli, S.M.; Yang, X.-S. Optimum Reinforced Concrete Design by Harmony Search Algorithm; Yang, X.-S., Bekdaş, G., Nigdeli, S.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 165–180. ISBN 978-3-319-26245-1. [Google Scholar]
  48. Foraboschi, P.; Mercanzin, M.; Trabucco, D. Sustainable Structural Design of Tall Buildings Based on Embodied Energy. Energy Build. 2014, 68, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. EN 1991-1-4; Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures–Part 1-4: General Actions—Wind Actions. European Standards: Brussels, Belgium, 1991.
  50. Behera, M.; Bhattacharyya, S.K.; Minocha, A.K.; Deoliya, R.; Maiti, S. Recycled Aggregate from C&D Waste & Its Use in Concrete—A Breakthrough towards Sustainability in Construction Sector: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abushanab, A.; Alnahhal, W. Performance of Sustainable Concrete Incorporating Treated Domestic Wastewater, RCA, and Fly Ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 329, 127118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Du, X.; Li, Y.; Si, Z.; Huang, L.; Chen, X. Effects of Basalt Fiber and Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber on the Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete and Optimization of Fiber Contents. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zheng, Y.; Zhuo, J.; Zhang, P.; Ma, M. Mechanical Properties and Meso-Microscopic Mechanism of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Coinnews Media Group LLC U.S. Inflation Calculator: Current Inflation Rates from 2000 to 2023. Available online: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  55. Paranhos, R.S.; Cazacliu, B.G.; Sampaio, C.H.; Petter, C.O.; Neto, R.O.; Huchet, F. A Sorting Method to Value Recycled Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2249–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. RSMeans Construction and Cost Estimating Data. Available online: https://www.rsmeans.com/ (accessed on 25 January 2025).
  57. Davis, M.; McGinnis, M.; Kurama, Y.C. Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregates for Improved Sustainability of Reinforced Concrete Building Structures–Economic Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA, 14–17 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shwekat, K.; Wu, H.-C. Benefit-Cost Analysis Model of Using Class F Fly Ash-Based Green Cement in Masonry Units. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Val, D.V.; Stewart, M.G. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures in Marine Environments. Struct. Saf. 2003, 25, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mistry, M.; Koffler, C.; Wong, S. LCA and LCC of the World’s Longest Pier: A Case Study on Nickel-Containing Stainless Steel Rebar. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1637–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ehlen, M.A.; Thomas, M.D.A.; Bentz, E.C. Life-365 Service Life Prediction ModelTM Version 2.2.3.1. Concr. Int. 2022, 31. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stambaugh, N.D.; Bergman, T.L.; Srubar, W. V Numerical Service-Life Modeling of Chloride-Induced Corrosion in Recycled-Aggregate Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 161, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Park, K.-B.; Lee, H.-S.; Wang, X.-Y. Prediction of Time-Dependent Chloride Diffusion Coefficients for Slag-Blended Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017, 1901459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zahid, C.Z.B.; Rezwan, M.M.; Redwan-Ul-Islam; Mohammed, T.U. Service Life Optimization and Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Using SCMs as Partial Replacement of Cement. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2521, 012008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cabrera, J.G. Deterioration of Concrete Due to Reinforcement Steel Corrosion. Cem. Concr. Compos. 1996, 18, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xuan, Y.; Yue, Q. Forecast of Steel Demand and the Availability of Depreciated Steel Scrap in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Omura, A.; Todorova, N.; Li, B.; Chung, R. Steel Scrap and Equity Market in Japan. Resour. Policy 2016, 47, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Broadbent, C. Steel’s Recyclability: Demonstrating the Benefits of Recycling Steel to Achieve a Circular Economy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1658–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 Appendix C: Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness, Lease Purchase, and Related Analyses. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/24/2022-11085/discount-rates-for-cost-effectiveness-analysis-of-federal-programs (accessed on 10 January 2025).
  70. Infrastructure Australia. Overview Assessment Framework; Infrastructure Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2021; ISBN 9781925352498. [Google Scholar]
  71. Martínez-Lage, I.; Vázquez-Burgo, P.; Velay-Lizancos, M. Sustainability Evaluation of Concretes with Mixed Recycled Aggregate Based on Holistic Approach: Technical, Economic and Environmental Analysis. Waste Manag. 2020, 104, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Buildings 15 01167 g001
Figure 1. A summary of the LCC methodology followed in this study.
Figure 1. A summary of the LCC methodology followed in this study.
Buildings 15 01167 g001
Buildings 15 01167 g002
Figure 2. A summary of the expenses considered in the LCC model.
Figure 2. A summary of the expenses considered in the LCC model.
Buildings 15 01167 g002
Buildings 15 01167 g003
Figure 3. Total costs of all buildings in USD/m2.
Figure 3. Total costs of all buildings in USD/m2.
Buildings 15 01167 g003
Buildings 15 01167 g004
Figure 4. LCC of all buildings in USD/m2.
Figure 4. LCC of all buildings in USD/m2.
Buildings 15 01167 g004
Buildings 15 01167 g005
Figure 5. The results of the sensitivity analysis: (a) RCA-to-NA ratio, (b) construction-to-material ratio, and (c) discount rate.
Figure 5. The results of the sensitivity analysis: (a) RCA-to-NA ratio, (b) construction-to-material ratio, and (c) discount rate.
Buildings 15 01167 g005
Table 1. The design alternatives in the LCCA of this study.
Table 1. The design alternatives in the LCCA of this study.
Design AlternativeAggregate UsedFABF *
NCPNA0%0%
RFBRCA20%0.2%
* Values are in volume fractions.
Table 2. Quantity takeoff of all design scenarios.
Table 2. Quantity takeoff of all design scenarios.
Scenario No.No. of FloorsArea (m2)Concrete (m3) Steel (kg)
12080002185341,547
23017,2804883764,123
34036,00011,2221,764,518
45057,80020,7723,275,740
560105,84036,3715,772,557
670189,28066,34510,515,272
Table 4. The manufacture and maintenance costs of all design scenarios over a 50-year period.
Table 4. The manufacture and maintenance costs of all design scenarios over a 50-year period.
Design
Scenario		YearTotal (USD/m2)
01020304050
NCP-20281.239.439.439.439.4112.3551.1
NCP-30291.140.740.740.740.7116.1570.0
NCP-40321.845.145.145.145.1128.1630.1
NCP-50371.652.052.052.052.0147.6727.3
NCP-60356.549.949.949.949.9141.1697.1
NCP-70363.350.950.950.950.9143.9710.7
RFB-20278.00.00.039.20.0112.3429.4
RFB-30287.80.00.040.60.0116.1444.6
RFB-40318.60.00.044.90.0128.1491.6
RFB-50368.40.00.051.90.0147.6567.8
RFB-60353.20.00.049.70.0141.1544.0
RFB-70360.10.00.050.70.0143.9554.7
Table 5. The LCC results of all design scenarios.
Table 5. The LCC results of all design scenarios.
Design ScenarioCost (USD/m2)LCC (USD/m2)LCC
Saving (%)
MaterialConstructionMaintenanceDisposal
NCP-20112.5168.7139.287.5507.9-
NCP-30116.4174.6144.190.5525.7-
NCP-40128.7193.1159.399.8581.0-
NCP-50148.6223.0184.0115.0670.6-
NCP-60142.6213.9176.5109.9642.9-
NCP-70145.3218.0179.9112.1655.4-
RFB-20109.3168.733.887.5399.221.4
RFB-30113.2174.634.990.5413.321.4
RFB-40125.5193.138.799.8457.121.3
RFB-50145.4223.044.7115.0528.021.3
RFB-60139.4213.942.8109.9506.021.3
RFB-70142.1218.043.7112.1515.921.3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abushanab, A.; Vimonsatit, V. Cost-Effectiveness of Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures with Fly Ash and Basalt Fibres Under Corrosion: A Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Buildings 2025, 15, 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071167

AMA Style

Abushanab A, Vimonsatit V. Cost-Effectiveness of Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures with Fly Ash and Basalt Fibres Under Corrosion: A Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Buildings. 2025; 15(7):1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abushanab, Abdelrahman, and Vanissorn Vimonsatit. 2025. "Cost-Effectiveness of Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures with Fly Ash and Basalt Fibres Under Corrosion: A Life Cycle Cost Analysis" Buildings 15, no. 7: 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071167

APA Style

Abushanab, A., & Vimonsatit, V. (2025). Cost-Effectiveness of Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete Structures with Fly Ash and Basalt Fibres Under Corrosion: A Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Buildings, 15(7), 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15071167

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop