Next Article in Journal
Highly Stable Lignin-Based Magnetic Composites for Efficient Removal of Pb(II) from Wastewater
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis and Modeling of Thermogravimetric Curves of Chemically Modified Wheat Straw Filler-Based Biocomposites Using Machine Learning Techniques
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Assessment of the Strength and Microstructural Properties of Fly Ash-Containing Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Sustainable Concrete
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jcs9050222
jcs-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

Impact of Fibers on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of High-Performance Concrete Incorporating Zeolite

by
Hadi Bahmani
1,* and
Hasan Mostafaei
2,*
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
2
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9(5), 222; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050222
Submission received: 17 March 2025 / Revised: 25 April 2025 / Accepted: 28 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Cement and Concrete Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates, for the first time, the effects of polypropylene, steel, glass, and synthetic fibers on the mechanical and environmental properties of high-performance concrete (HPC) incorporating zeolite as a substitute for aggregates and cement. A series of tests, including compressive strength (load-displacement), slump, specific gravity, and water absorption percentage, were conducted to evaluate the performance of the composite materials. Additionally, the IMPACT2002+ method was employed to assess the environmental impacts of the different fiber types. Furthermore, a life cycle costing (LCC) analysis was performed to evaluate the economic feasibility of using these fibers in sustainable HPC applications. The findings reveal that the incorporation of steel fibers results in a notable improvement in compressive strength, achieving 92 MPa compared to 85 MPa for fiber-free samples. Additionally, modified synthetic macro fibers exhibited the second-highest compressive strength, at 83 MPa, while also demonstrating the lowest environmental impact among the tested fibers, characterized by the lowest cost index and minimal carbon dioxide emissions.

1. Introduction

In recent years, growing environmental concerns have intensified efforts to reduce the ecological footprint of construction materials [1,2,3]. Concrete, being the most widely used building material, is one of the major contributors to global CO2 emissions due to its high cement content. The environmental impact associated with traditional concrete production poses a significant challenge to the sustainability of the construction industry [4,5]. The large-scale manufacturing of Portland cement releases substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), contributing to global warming and climate change [6,7]. The construction sector is thus under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint and find more sustainable alternatives [8,9]. To mitigate these effects, researchers are actively exploring innovative materials and concrete formulations that can reduce the environmental impact while maintaining or even enhancing performance [10,11].
One promising avenue involves the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) [12,13] like natural zeolite, which can partially replace cement in concrete mixes, thereby reducing the overall carbon footprint [14,15]. Zeolite, a natural aluminosilicate mineral, offers pozzolanic properties that enhance the mechanical properties and durability of concrete [16,17]. By incorporating zeolite into concrete, it is possible to achieve high-performance characteristics while addressing environmental concerns [18,19].
One of the strongest benefits of natural zeolite in HPC/UHPC is improved durability. Zeolite’s filler effect, internal water storage, and pozzolanic reactions lead to a denser microstructure that resists ingress of deleterious agents. Numerous studies document reduced permeability and absorption in zeolite-modified concretes. Replacing 10% of cement with zeolite decreased the 28-day water absorption (both 30 min and 24 h) by 4–17% in one study [20]. The same substitution cut rapid chloride permeability by ~41% at 28 days, indicating significantly better resistance to chloride ion penetration. The addition of zeolite can affect the properties of fresh concrete, generally tending to reduce workability. Zeolite particles are highly porous and angular, which increases the water demand and viscosity of the mix. As a result, mixes with zeolite often exhibit lower slump and flow unless admixtures are adjusted. Sabet et al. [21] reported that in self-consolidating HPC, both natural zeolite and silica fume increased the need for superplasticizer (SP) to achieve a given slump flow, whereas fly ash, by contrast, improved fluidity at the same SP dosage.
Previous studies have demonstrated that incorporating fibers as reinforcement in high-performance concrete (HPC) significantly enhances its energy absorption capacity, ductility, and bending strength [22,23]. This improvement is essential for applications where structural integrity and resistance to dynamic loads are crucial [24,25].
Bahmani et al. [26] conducted a comprehensive study investigating the mechanical attributes and microstructure of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) incorporating natural zeolite as a partial cement replacement. Their research focused on the performance of UHPFRC specimens reinforced with various fibers, including steel, polypropylene, and synthetic macro fibers (Barchip). These specimens were subjected to different curing regimes, including wet, autoclave, heat, and combined curing, to evaluate their compressive and flexural strength, fracture energy, and flexural toughness indices.
The results of Bahmani et al.’s study indicated that zeolite-modified UHPFRC achieved a minimum compressive strength of 100 MPa. Specimens treated with heat and autoclave curing exhibited even higher compressive strengths, with average values of 125 MPa and 162 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the incorporation of Barchip fibers significantly improved the flexural response of UHPFRC through deflection hardening behavior. The study also confirmed that the presence of natural zeolite promoted the formation of calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H), a critical component for enhancing the compressive strength.
Similarly, Mostafaie and Bahmani [27] explored the potential of zeolite powder in producing environmentally sustainable HPC. By partially substituting cement and silica sand with zeolite powder, they investigated replacement levels of 10%, 20%, and 30% for cement and up to 50% for silica sand. The optimized blend achieved a compressive strength of 85 MPa, tensile strength of 6 MPa, and flexural strength of 7.8 MPa with a 30% cement replacement, effectively lowering the carbon footprint to approximately 659.72 kg CO2/m3. These findings suggest that zeolite powder can improve the sustainability of HPC without significantly compromising key mechanical properties.
In the quest for sustainable construction materials, HPC has emerged as a promising solution. This study addresses the environmental impact of traditional concrete production by investigating the use of zeolite as a partial replacement for both cement and aggregate in HPC. While zeolite offers a sustainable alternative, its application alone may not fully address the mechanical limitations of concrete, such as tensile strength and toughness. To overcome these limitations, this research explores the incorporation of various fiber types, including steel, synthetic, and natural fibers, to enhance the mechanical properties and durability of zeolite-modified HPC.
The research gap in this field is the limited exploration of the synergistic effects of combining different fibers with zeolite in HPC. Previous studies have primarily focused on either the use of supplementary cementitious materials like zeolite or the incorporation of fibers, but few have examined how these two approaches work together to optimize both mechanical and environmental performance. By evaluating the individual and combined effects of zeolite and various fibers, this study aims to fill this gap and provide a comprehensive understanding of how to develop more sustainable and high-performing concrete materials.
This dual approach of using zeolite and fibers not only mitigates the environmental impact of concrete production but also improves its mechanical performance, offering a greener and more durable solution for construction. The study’s objectives include identifying the optimal fiber type to complement zeolite in HPC, evaluating the trade-offs between environmental benefits and mechanical performance, and demonstrating how fibers can enhance the overall properties of zeolite-modified concrete.
Ultimately, this research contributes to the construction industry by offering guidelines for selecting the most effective and sustainable fibers to enhance zeolite-modified HPC, leading to the development of greener and more durable buildings and structures. By bridging the gap between zeolite and fiber research, this study advances our understanding of sustainable HPC, paving the way for innovative material solutions in the field of construction.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The materials used in this research included Type I Portland cement (Class 1-425) with a Blaine fineness of 3200 cm2/g. After 28 days, its compressive strength ranged from 425 to 625 kg/cm2. This cement was manufactured by the Isfahan Cement Company, with silica sand, zeolite powder, and a polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing admixture as the base mixing design components. Type 1 Portland cement conforming to ASTM C 150 [28] served as the primary binder material, renowned for its reliable performance and adherence to established standards.
Aggregates: Silica sand, with particle sizes less than 150 microns, was employed as the fine aggregate in the concrete mix (manufactured by Chirok Company Isfahan, Iran). This fine-grained sand contributed to the concrete’s density and strength, ensuring uniform particle distribution. Additionally, zeolite powder conforming to ASTM C 618 [29] was introduced as an SCM to partially replace both cement and silica sand. Zeolite particles of varying sizes were used, with grains smaller than 150 microns acting as a replacement for silica sand and grains smaller than 50 microns serving as a partial substitute for cement. The pozzolanic properties of zeolite were harnessed to enhance the mechanical properties and durability of the concrete.
Fibers: The fiber reinforcements included:
  • Steel fibers: 35 mm in length, providing high tensile strength and enhancing the overall toughness and crack resistance of the concrete (manufactured by Sirjan Nano Company, Sirjan, Iran) (Table 1).
  • Barchip fibers: Synthetic macro fibers, 50 mm in length, which contributed to the flexural strength and deflection hardening behavior of the concrete (manufactured by Sirjan Nano Company, Sirjan, Iran) (Table 1).
  • Polypropylene fibers: 18 mm in length, known for their resistance to chemical attacks and improving the impact resistance of the concrete (manufactured by Sirjan Nano Company, Sirjan, Iran) (Table 1).
  • Glass fibers: 6 mm in length, offering additional tensile strength and contributing to the reduction of plastic shrinkage cracks (manufactured by Sirjan Nano Company, Sirjan, Iran) (Table 1).
The physical and mechanical properties of the fibers are presented in Table 1. Zeolite I is a powder with particle sizes of less than 50 microns, while Zeolite II is a powder with particle sizes of less than 150 microns.
Superplasticizer: A polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA), compliant with ASTM C494 [30], was used to improve the workability and flowability of the concrete. This admixture facilitated the uniform distribution of the fiber reinforcements and minimized the risk of segregation, resulting in a homogeneous and cohesive mix (manufactured by Fars Iran Company, Tehran, Iran).
By carefully selecting and combining these materials, the research aimed to develop an optimized high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (HPFRC) mix that exhibited superior mechanical properties, durability, and sustainability. The synergistic effects of the various fibers and the pozzolanic properties of zeolite were thoroughly investigated to determine their impact on the overall performance of the concrete. Table 2 presents the chemical compositions of the materials used in the study.

2.2. Mixing Procedure

The mixing procedure for the concrete blend was methodically designed to ensure a homogeneous and well-integrated mixture. The process began with the initial blending of the powder materials. The selected powders, which included Type 1 Portland cement, silica sand, and zeolite powder, were introduced into the mixer. The mixer was operated at a low speed for a duration of 3 min to allow the powder components to combine evenly and avoid any potential segregation or clumping.
Following the preliminary mixing of the powders, the next step involved the addition of water and the superplasticizer. The water acted as a vital component for the hydration process, while the superplasticizer was incorporated to enhance the workability and flowability of the mix. Upon adding these liquid components, the mixer was set to operate at a high speed. This high-speed mixing was maintained for an additional 3 min to ensure that the water and superplasticizer were thoroughly distributed throughout the powder blend, resulting in a uniform and cohesive mixture.
In the final stage of the mixing plan, the various fibers were introduced into the mix. These fibers included 35 mm steel fibers, 50 mm long Barchip fibers, 12 mm long polypropylene fibers, and 12 mm long glass fibers. The fibers were added incrementally to prevent clumping and to achieve an even distribution within the concrete matrix. The mixer continued to operate at high speed for a further 5 min. This extended high-speed mixing ensured that the fibers were fully integrated into the mix, providing consistent reinforcement throughout the concrete.
By adhering to this meticulous mixing procedure, the research aimed to achieve a well-balanced HPC blend that exhibited superior mechanical properties and durability. The careful control of mixing speeds and durations at each stage played a crucial role in ensuring the quality and performance of the final concrete product.
Table 3 presents the mixing designs for this research, indicating that the fiber content was maintained at 1.5% by volume across all mixing designs. It is important to note that the percentage of fibers used in this research was set at 1.5% by volume, corresponding to specific weights of 7850 kg/m3 for steel fibers, 2800 kg/m3 for glass fibers, and 910 kg/m3 for polypropylene and Barchip fibers, respectively.
Figure 1 presents the particle size distribution of materials used in the current study.

2.3. Tests

The workability and flow characteristics of the HPC samples were evaluated using the mortar flow test, a standard method in accordance with ASTM C1437 [31]. This test is crucial for assessing the workability and flow characteristics of the concrete, which are essential for ensuring proper placement and finishing in construction applications. Furthermore, the density of the HPC samples was measured to assess their compactness and structural integrity, a critical factor in determining the material’s performance and durability.
To ensure uniformity and minimize air content, fresh concrete mortar was poured into the mold in three layers, with each layer compacted using a vibrating table or manual tamping. This process ensured the removal of air bubbles and resulted in a dense, uniform sample. The density of the samples was measured in air to determine their bulk density, following standard procedures.
These measurements were vital for understanding the material’s properties and performance under various conditions, providing valuable insights into the effectiveness of the HPC mixing designs. The results of these tests were compared with existing data to contextualize the advancements and implications for future material development in the construction industry.
In this research, a series of comprehensive tests was meticulously conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of the HPFRC mixes (three duplicate samples per experiment). The primary focus of these investigations was on determining the compressive stress–strain behavior of the concrete, which was crucial to understanding its performance under load. Additionally, the study aimed to assess the performance of the different concrete mixes while considering various loading conditions, such as rate of loading and type of applied force, which can significantly influence the mechanical response of the concrete.
To achieve these objectives, strain gauges were employed to accurately measure the compressive stress–strain curves of the concrete specimens. These highly sensitive and precise instruments can detect minute deformations in the material, typically in the range of microstrains (10−6). The load was applied at a constant rate of 1 MPa per second to ensure consistent testing conditions. This capability provided detailed insights into the material’s response to applied stresses throughout the loading process. By using strain gauges, the researchers were able to capture the complete spectrum of stress–strain behavior, including both the elastic and plastic regions of the material, as well as critical parameters such as the ultimate compressive strength and the failure characteristics of the concrete.
The tests were performed on cylindrical concrete samples based on ASTM C39 [32], each with dimensions of 200 mm in height and 100 mm in diameter. These standard-sized specimens were specifically chosen to ensure consistency and comparability of results across different mixes and curing conditions. This standardization is critical in experimental research, as it allows for the reliable comparison of mechanical properties across various test conditions and material compositions. Prior to testing, the ends of each cylinder were carefully prepared to achieve a uniform surface finish, which minimized eccentric loading effects and ensured that the compressive load was applied evenly across the specimen. Figure 2 shows the test setup for the compressive strength test.
Each concrete specimen was subjected to controlled axial compressive loading using a hydraulic testing machine, which was equipped with an advanced data acquisition system. The data acquisition system was intricately connected to the strain gauges, enabling continuous recording of the stress–strain data throughout the test duration. This setup facilitated real-time monitoring of the applied load and corresponding strain responses, providing a comprehensive dataset that reflected the mechanical behavior of HPFRC under compressive loading.
By aggregating the data obtained from these tests, the researchers aimed to derive insights into the performance characteristics of the various HPFRC mixes, contributing to the broader understanding of how different fiber types and mixing designs influence the mechanical properties of HPC samples.

2.4. Carbon Footprint Analysis

As sustainability becomes a central objective in modern construction practices, quantifying the environmental footprint of concrete mixtures has gained critical importance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methods are widely employed to examine the environmental consequences of material choices throughout the production chain [33,34]. To evaluate the environmental impact HPC incorporating zeolite and different fiber reinforcements, a comprehensive carbon footprint analysis was conducted using the IMPACT 2002+ method [35]. This approach provides a detailed assessment of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production, transportation, and processing of raw materials used in the concrete mix [36,37]. The assessment focused on quantifying the total CO2 emissions per cubic meter of HPC, considering both direct and indirect emissions from material sourcing, manufacturing, and construction processes [38,39].
The life cycle inventory (LCI) data for cement, silica sand, zeolite, and fiber reinforcements were obtained from established databases and the relevant literature to ensure accuracy and consistency in the analysis. Additionally, the influence of partial cement and aggregate replacement with zeolite on the overall environmental impact was investigated. The emission factors for each component were calculated based on energy consumption and transportation distances, considering regional production variations. By performing this analysis, the study aimed to identify the potential carbon savings achievable through zeolite incorporation and fiber reinforcement selection, offering insights into the sustainability of the developed HPC mixtures.
Zeolite itself is a naturally occurring pozzolan that typically requires only grinding to be used in concrete, unlike energy-intensive clinker production [40]. Thus, its production emissions are far lower than those of Portland cement [27,41]. By partially substituting cement with zeolite, the concrete industry can directly cut CO2 emissions and also benefit from zeolite’s low cost and abundant availability. Researchers emphasize that zeolite is an economically and environmentally attractive SCM—it is often much cheaper than silica fume or metakaolin, and its use addresses sustainability goals without significantly compromising performance. It is important to note that a full sustainability analysis should also consider zeolite mining and transport; however, even with those factors, most studies conclude the net environmental impact is substantially positive when using zeolite as a cement replacement [3,42,43,44].

2.5. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) Analysis

To complement the environmental evaluation, a life cycle costing (LCC) analysis was performed to assess the economic feasibility of integrating zeolite and various fiber types into HPC [45,46]. LCC provides a holistic view of the total financial investment required over the entire lifespan of the material, from initial production and construction to maintenance and end-of-life disposal [47]. This economic assessment included material procurement costs [48,49,50].
The cost analysis considered both the upfront expenses and the long-term economic benefits associated with enhanced durability, reduced repair frequency, and lower maintenance costs over the structure’s service life [51,52]. The financial data were gathered from market prices and industry reports, ensuring a realistic cost estimation.

3. Results

3.1. Fresh Properties

3.1.1. Flow Properties

The slump results for various mixing designs are presented in Figure 3, which illustrates the flowability and workability of the different concrete mixes evaluated in this study. Slump, as a measure of the consistency and viscosity of the fresh concrete, is a critical parameter that influences the ease of handling, placement, and overall performance of concrete in construction applications. According to the data illustrated in the figure, it can be observed that, in general, the addition of fibers in the concrete mix resulted in a reduction in slump compared to the mixing design that did not include fibers. This trend was indicative of increased viscosity and cohesiveness in the concrete matrix when fibers were included, likely due to the interaction between the fibers and the cement paste.
In this research, building on findings from previous studies, it was demonstrated that increasing the fiber content beyond 1.5% posed significant challenges, making it difficult—if not impossible—to achieve the same workability (slump) in the concrete samples [25]. Consequently, this fiber percentage was selected for further investigation. Additionally, our results indicated that for samples containing 1.5% synthetic macro fibers and steel fibers, it was necessary to adjust the amount of superplasticizer to levels nearly identical to those established in the mixing design for samples without fibers in order to maintain consistent slump values. This information is detailed in Table 3 of the mixing designs included in this research.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 3, the slump of the samples reinforced with synthetic and steel macro fibers was found to be nearly equivalent to that of the samples without any fibers. Previous studies have suggested that in samples reinforced with microfibers, an increase of 5 kg/m3 of superplasticizer is typically required to achieve comparable slump [25,46], a recommendation that was also incorporated in Table 3 of our study. In our findings, the slump reductions observed in samples reinforced with glass fibers and polypropylene were 12 mm and 8 mm, respectively, corroborating earlier research.
Among the different mixing designs assessed, the mix reinforced with polypropylene fibers exhibited the lowest slump value, measuring at just 178 mm. This significant decrease in slump suggested that the incorporation of polypropylene fibers enhanced the mixture’s ability to maintain its shape and reduced its workability. The lightweight and flexible nature of polypropylene fibers may contribute to this phenomenon by increasing internal friction and cohesiveness within the mix, thereby reducing fluidity. While polypropylene fibers are known to enhance the ductility and crack resistance of concrete, the trade-off in workability must be carefully considered, especially in applications requiring ease of placement and leveling.
The observed slump reduction with fiber reinforcement is an essential consideration for engineers and practitioners, as it indicates that adjustments to water content, superplasticizers, or other admixtures may be needed to achieve desired workability for specific construction applications. Understanding this balance is crucial for ensuring that the concrete can be adequately mixed, transported, and placed without compromising the intended structural performance or durability.

3.1.2. Specific Weight

The specific weight results of different mixing designs are presented in Figure 4. This figure illustrates the variations in specific weight across several concrete mixes, highlighting the influence of different types of fibers used in each design. From the analysis of the data depicted in the figure, it can be observed that the incorporation of steel fibers into the mixing plan significantly increased the specific weight of the concrete. This increase can be attributed to the inherent rigidity and density of steel, which adds substantial mass to the concrete matrix. The added steel fibers enhanced the concrete’s mechanical performance while also contributing to the overall weight, making these mixes particularly suitable for applications where increased strength and durability are required.
By contrast, the use of Barchip glass fibers and polypropylene fibers appeared to reduce the specific weights of the concrete mixes compared to designs without fibers. The reduced specific weights observed in these formulations can be explained by the lower density of these particular fibers compared to steel. Barchip glass fibers, while providing reinforcement and enhancing certain mechanical properties, do not contribute as much to the overall mass due to their lighter weight. Similarly, polypropylene fibers are known for their low density and ability to enhance the ductility and crack resistance of concrete without significantly increasing its weight.
Among the various mixes evaluated, the design that incorporated polypropylene fibers exhibited the lowest specific weight. This finding suggested that while polypropylene fibers contribute valuable properties to the concrete—such as improved flexibility and resistance to cracking—they also result in a lighter final product. This specific mix design could be advantageous in contexts where weight is a critical concern, such as in precast elements or structures requiring reduced load on underlying foundations.

3.2. Compressive Strength of HPC

3.2.1. Stress–Strain Behavior

The stress–strain curves for various research samples are illustrated in Figure 5. It is noteworthy that the slump and workability of samples reinforced with steel fibers and Barchip were nearly identical. By contrast, the slump and workability of samples incorporating glass fibers and polypropylene were comparatively lower, as shown in Figure 3.
These results revealed that the inclusion of different types of fibers significantly mitigated the brittleness observed in the samples after failure. Notably, the samples reinforced with steel fibers exhibited the highest compressive strength, attributed to the inherent rigidity and robustness of the steel material. Additionally, these steel fiber-reinforced samples also demonstrated the highest failure strain, indicating an enhanced ability to deform before fracture occurs. This suggested that the incorporation of steel fibers not only improved the strength but also enhanced the ductility of the composite material. The samples reinforced with Barchip fibers demonstrated compressive strengths comparable to those of the non-reinforced samples, showcasing minimal compromise in their load-bearing capacity. Moreover, these fiber-reinforced samples exhibited a significantly higher failure strain, outperforming other synthetic and mineral fiber alternatives. This superior performance highlights the ability of Barchip fibers to enhance ductility and energy absorption under stress, making them an effective choice for improving structural resilience.

3.2.2. Compressive Strength

The compressive strength results of the various mixing designs evaluated in this research are illustrated in Figure 6. This figure presents a comparative analysis of the compressive strengths achieved by different concrete formulations, highlighting the influence of fiber reinforcement on the overall mechanical performance of the mixes. It can be observed that the highest compressive strength was achieved in the design incorporating steel fibers, which demonstrated an impressive strength of 92 MPa. This superior strength can be attributed to the inherent properties of steel fibers, which provide significant reinforcement and enhance the load-bearing capacity of the concrete matrix. Steel fibers improve resistance to cracking and increase ductility, making them a valuable addition for applications where high strength and durability are paramount.
By contrast, the inclusion of Barchip glass, polypropylene, and other types of fibers resulted in a reduction in the compressive strength when compared to the steel fiber-reinforced mix. This decline may be related to the lower density and mechanical properties of these particular fibers, which, while beneficial in promoting other performance characteristics like flexibility and crack resistance, do not provide the same level of strength enhancement as steel fibers. Specifically, the mix reinforced with polypropylene fibers exhibited the lowest compressive strength, measuring only 77 MPa. This result indicated a notable decrease in strength, suggesting that while polypropylene fibers enhance certain aspects of concrete performance, such as toughness and toughness and workability, they may compromise the ultimate strength under compressive loading scenarios.
The findings underscore the importance of fiber type selection in concrete mix design, as different fibers can significantly affect the mechanical properties of the final product. These results also highlight the need for a balanced approach to reinforcement, where factors such as desired structural performance, environmental conditions, and specific application requirements are carefully considered.

3.2.3. Young’s Modulus

The Young’s modulus results for different mixing designs are depicted in Figure 7. The Young’s modulus is a fundamental mechanical parameter that reflects the stiffness of a material and its ability to resist elastic deformation under stress. According to the experimental data, the highest Young’s modulus value was recorded for the sample reinforced with steel fibers, which was consistent with its superior compressive strength and rigid mechanical behavior. This enhancement can be attributed to the high modulus of elasticity of steel itself, which improves the overall stiffness of the concrete matrix when integrated homogeneously.
Following the steel fiber mix, the Barchip fiber-reinforced sample demonstrated the second-highest Young’s modulus. Although Barchip fibers possessed a significantly lower modulus than steel, their uniform dispersion and interaction with the cementitious matrix contributed to the effective transmission of stress, thereby improving the stiffness compared to unreinforced concrete. The modulus value for the Barchip sample also remained higher than that of the plain HPC mix, reinforcing its potential as a viable alternative when moderate stiffness and enhanced ductility are desired.
By contrast, the concrete samples reinforced with polypropylene and glass fibers exhibited the lowest Young’s modulus values among the tested groups. This reduction is linked to the relatively low stiffness of these fiber types, which, while enhancing ductility and crack resistance, do not contribute significantly to the overall rigidity of the composite. In particular, the polypropylene fiber mix showed the lowest modulus, suggesting that such fibers may be better suited for applications where flexibility and energy dissipation are prioritized over high elastic stiffness.

3.3. Carbon Footprint Results

The carbon footprint results of different mixing designs are presented in Figure 8. The results of the life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis indicated that samples reinforced with steel fibers produced the highest carbon footprint index, highlighting the significant environmental impact associated with their use. Conversely, the samples reinforced with Barchip fibers exhibited the lowest carbon footprint index when compared to other fiber types, underscoring their environmentally friendly characteristics.
In terms of mechanical performance, the Barchip fiber-reinforced samples demonstrated compressive strength levels that were comparable to the non-reinforced samples, indicating that their load-bearing capacity was largely maintained without significant compromise. Furthermore, these Barchip-reinforced samples showcased a markedly higher failure strain than those reinforced with other synthetic and mineral fibers. This impressive performance not only demonstrates the capability of Barchip fibers to enhance ductility but also their effectiveness in energy absorption under stress. Consequently, Barchip fibers emerged as an advantageous choice for improving the structural resilience of materials, balancing performance with environmental considerations.
Figure 9 illustrates the strength-to-environmental impact index for the various samples tested in the study. Analyzing the data presented in this figure, it is evident that the samples without any fiber reinforcement achieved the highest value for this index. This notable performance indicates their exceptional ability to balance both mechanical strength and environmental considerations effectively, making them an attractive option for applications where sustainability is a priority.
In close proximity, the samples reinforced with Barchip fibers achieved the second-highest value for the strength-to-environmental impact index. This finding highlights the potential of Barchip fibers not only to enhance structural integrity but also to contribute to environmentally conscious applications, as they exhibit substantial strength while minimizing negative environmental effects.
By contrast, among all of the fiber-reinforced samples, those incorporating steel fibers exhibited the lowest value for the strength-to-environmental impact index. This lower index reflects a comparatively higher environmental impact associated with the use of steel fibers, relative to the strength benefits they provide. As such, while steel fibers contribute significant rigidity and strength to the composite material, their environmental implications cannot be overlooked. These findings suggest that while performance is crucial, the selection of materials should also consider their ecological footprint to achieve a more sustainable balance in construction practices.

3.4. LCC Results of HPC

Figure 10 presents the price index of the various samples, effectively illustrating the economic considerations associated with each type of reinforcement used in the study. Analyzing the data depicted in this figure revealed that the samples without any fiber reinforcement exhibited the lowest price index. This finding underscores their position as the most cost-effective option available, offering a straightforward solution for applications where budget constraints are a primary concern.
In the next tier, the samples reinforced with Barchip fibers demonstrated a relatively low price index, indicating that they remain an affordable choice compared to other fiber-reinforced alternatives. This affordability suggests that manufacturers and builders can benefit from the added strength and performance provided by Barchip fibers without incurring significant additional costs, making them an attractive option for projects seeking to balance budgetary constraints with material performance.
Conversely, among all of the fiber-reinforced samples evaluated in this study, those that incorporated steel fibers were found to have the highest price index. This elevated cost reflects the greater financial implications associated with using steel fibers, which, while offering substantial strength advantages, may pose a barrier to their broader adoption in cost-sensitive applications.
This disparity in price indices highlights the economic advantage of utilizing Barchip fibers, which effectively strikes a balance between enhancing performance and managing costs. By opting for Barchip fibers, stakeholders can achieve improved material properties without excessively inflating the overall project budget, promoting both economic viability and structural integrity.
Figure 11 depicts the strength-to-cost index for the various samples, providing valuable insights into the cost efficiency of each type of reinforcement evaluated in the study. The results indicated that the samples without any fiber reinforcement achieved the highest value for this index, underscoring their exceptional cost effectiveness in relation to the strength they provided. This high strength-to-cost ratio suggests that for applications where budget constraints are significant, these unreinforced samples represent a highly efficient choice, maximizing performance without additional expenses.
Following closely in the ranking, the samples reinforced with Barchip fibers demonstrated a commendable strength-to-cost index, indicating their ability to deliver robust performance while still being economically viable. This balance is particularly appealing for construction projects that seek to optimize material properties without incurring prohibitively high costs. Barchip fibers enhance the structural integrity of the samples, making them a valuable option for stakeholders who prioritize both performance and budget considerations.
In stark contrast, among all of the fiber-reinforced options analyzed, the samples containing steel fibers recorded the lowest value for the strength-to-cost index. This low value reflects a less favorable balance between the strength offered by the steel fibers and their associated costs, suggesting that while these fibers contribute significant advantages in terms of rigidity and durability, they do so at a higher financial burden. This economic inefficiency could deter their use in applications where cost-effectiveness is crucial.
Overall, these findings highlight the financial and structural benefits of utilizing Barchip fibers as an alternative to traditional steel reinforcements. By offering a more favorable balance between cost and performance, Barchip fibers emerged as a strategic choice for engineers and architects aiming to enhance the sustainability and economic viability of their projects without compromising on strength.

4. Comparison with Known Analogs

This study presents an innovative investigation into the effects of polypropylene, steel, glass, and synthetic fibers on the mechanical and environmental properties of HPC incorporating zeolite as a partial substitute for both aggregates and cement. The inclusion of zeolite is particularly significant as it is gaining recognition in eco-friendly concrete formulations due to its pozzolanic properties, which not only enhance the durability of concrete but also contribute to its sustainability by reducing the overall carbon footprint.
We conducted a comprehensive series of tests—including compressive strength, slump, specific gravity, and water absorption percentage—which are standard methodologies widely recognized for evaluating the performance of composite materials in this field. Our results revealed that the incorporation of steel fibers significantly improves the compressive strength of concrete, achieving an impressive 92 MPa compared to 85 MPa for the fiber-free samples. This finding corroborates previous research indicating that steel fibers generally enhance the compressive strength, while synthetic and mineral fibers tend to have a neutral or adverse effect on it. However, it is worth noting that concrete reinforced with steel fibers was associated with higher costs compared to other fiber types. This observed improvement aligns with a wealth of studies that consistently highlight the mechanical advantages of utilizing steel fibers in concrete applications [23,24,25,26,53,54].
Interestingly, our experiments also utilized modified synthetic macro fibers, which yielded a commendable compressive strength of 83 MPa while demonstrating the lowest environmental impact among all tested fibers. This finding is particularly striking when juxtaposed with the existing literature, which often indicates that synthetic fibers result in increased environmental costs [53,54]. Our results underscore the competitive edge of these synthetic fibers, characterized by a favorable cost index and minimal carbon dioxide emissions—factors that are critical in evaluating the sustainability of HPC applications.
Moreover, our use of the IMPACT2002+ method for assessing environmental impacts aligns with best practices in the literature, facilitating a robust comparative analysis of the environmental performance of various fiber types [23,54,55,56]. Coupled with our life cycle costing (LCC) analysis, we are able to confidently assert that the sustainable application of these fibers not only enhances the mechanical properties of HPC but also proves to be economically viable. In summary, our data not only reinforce previous findings regarding the benefits of steel and synthetic fibers in enhancing the mechanical properties of concrete but also provide new insights into their environmental performance. This research contributes valuable knowledge to the field of sustainable construction materials and underscores the importance of integrating both mechanical and environmental considerations in the design of high-performance concrete.

5. Conclusions

This research represents a pioneering investigation into the effects of various fibers in high-performance concrete (HPC), including the innovative use of zeolite as a substitute for both cement and aggregate. To assess the impact of these fibers, we analyzed the stress–strain curves alongside environmental and economic evaluations of different mixing designs. The findings of this study can be summarized as follows:
  • Among the various fibers examined, Barchip fibers demonstrated the ability to achieve a compressive strength of 83 MPa, reflecting only a 2.4% decrease compared to unreinforced HPC (85 MPa), while offering a significant 9.8% improvement in failure strain. Steel fibers, on the other hand, enhanced the compressive strength by approximately 8.2% (reaching 92 MPa), indicating their superior contribution to load-bearing capacity.
  • The environmental analysis revealed that steel fiber-reinforced samples resulted in the highest carbon dioxide emissions, primarily due to the energy-intensive production of steel. By contrast, samples reinforced with Barchip fibers exhibited the lowest carbon footprint, with a 24% reduction in CO2 emissions compared to their steel-reinforced counterparts, demonstrating their eco-friendly potential.
  • The economic analysis indicated that samples reinforced with Barchip fibers had the lowest cost index among the fiber types investigated, making them a cost-effective choice for construction applications. Conversely, the samples reinforced with steel fibers exhibited the highest cost index, reflecting their greater financial implications.
Overall, this study underscores the advantages of using Barchip fibers in high-performance concrete, as they not only enhance mechanical properties but also contribute to improved environmental sustainability and economic viability. These findings suggest that Barchip fibers could be a strategic choice for future concrete applications, promoting a balance between performance, environmental responsibility, and cost effectiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.M. and H.B.; methodology, H.M. and H.B.; formal analysis, H.M. and H.B.; investigation, H.M. and H.B.; resources, H.M. and H.B.; data curation, H.M. and H.B.; writing—original draft preparation, H.M. and H.B.; writing—review and editing, H.M. and H.B.; visualization, H.M. and H.B.; supervision, H.M. and H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality issues.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
C-S-HCalcium-silicate-hydrate
GHGGreenhouse gas
HPCHigh-performance concrete
HPFRCHigh-performance fiber-reinforced concrete
LCCLife cycle costing
LCILife cycle inventory
SCMsSupplementary cementitious materials
UHPFRCUltra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete

References

  1. Mostafaei, H.; Kelishadi, M.; Bahmani, H.; Wu, C.; Ghiassi, B. Development of sustainable HPC using rubber powder and waste wire: Carbon footprint analysis, mechanical and microstructural properties. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2024, 29, 399–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barbhuiya, S.; Kanavaris, F.; Das, B.B.; Idrees, M. Decarbonising cement and concrete production: Strategies, challenges and pathways for sustainable development. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 86, 108861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bahmani, H.; Mostafaei, H.; Ghiassi, B.; Mostofinejad, D.; Wu, C. A comparative study of calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcined dolomite, and metasilicate as activators for slag-based HPC. Structures 2023, 58, 105653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zeyad, A.M. Sustainable concrete Production: Incorporating recycled wastewater as a green building material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 407, 133522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. França, W.T.; Barros, M.V.; Salvador, R.; de Francisco, A.C.; Moreira, M.T.; Piekarski, C.M. Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle cost: A review of environmental-economic studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 244–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Okeke, I.J.; Kamath, D.; Nimbalkar, S.U.; Cresko, J. The Role of Low-Carbon Fuels and Carbon Capture in Decarbonizing the US Clinker Manufacturing for Cement Production: CO2 Emissions Reduction Potentials. Energies 2024, 17, 5233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akintayo, B.D.; Babatunde, O.M.; Olanrewaju, O.A. Comparative analysis of cement production methods using a life cycle assessment and a multicriteria decision-making approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adaloudis, M.; Roca, J.B. Sustainability tradeoffs in the adoption of 3D Concrete Printing in the construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mostafaei, H.; Rostampour, M.A.; Chamasemani, N.F.; Wu, C. An In-Depth Exploration of Carbon Footprint Analysis in the Construction Sector with Emphasis on the Dam Industry. In Carbon Footprint Assessments: Case Studies & Best Practices; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 45–80. [Google Scholar]
  10. Saffari, R.; Nikooee, E.; Habibagahi, G.; Van Genuchten, M.T. Effects of biological stabilization on the water retention properties of unsaturated soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Farahzadi, L.; Nia, S.B.; Shafei, B.; Kioumarsi, M. Sustainability assessment of ultra-high performance concrete made with various supplementary cementitious materials. Clean. Mater. 2025, 15, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Snellings, R.; Suraneni, P.; Skibsted, J. Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2023, 171, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Snellings, R.; Mertens, G.; Elsen, J. Supplementary cementitious materials. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2012, 74, 211–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jhatial, A.A.; Nováková, I.; Gjerløw, E. A review on emerging cementitious materials, reactivity evaluation and treatment methods. Buildings 2023, 13, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paris, J.M.; Roessler, J.G.; Ferraro, C.C.; DeFord, H.D.; Townsend, T.G. A review of waste products utilized as supplements to Portland cement in concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 121, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pezeshkian, M.; Delnavaz, A.; Delnavaz, M. Effect of natural zeolite on mechanical properties and autogenous shrinkage of ultrahigh-performance concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alexa-Stratulat, S.-M.; Olteanu, I.; Toma, A.-M.; Pastia, C.; Banu, O.-M.; Corbu, O.-C.; Toma, I.-O. The use of natural zeolites in cement-based construction materials—A state of the art review. Coatings 2023, 14, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kazemian, M.; Shafei, B. Internal curing capabilities of natural zeolite to improve the hydration of ultra-high performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thang, N.C.; Tuan, N.V.; Yang, K.-H.; Phung, Q.T. Effect of zeolite on shrinkage and crack resistance of high-performance cement-based concrete. Materials 2020, 13, 3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mohsen Zadeh, P.; Saghravani, S.F.; Asadollahfardi, G. Mechanical and durability properties of concrete containing zeolite mixed with meta-kaolin and micro-nano bubbles of water. Struct. Concr. 2019, 20, 786–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sabet, F.A.; Libre, N.A.; Shekarchi, M. Mechanical and durability properties of self consolidating high performance concrete incorporating natural zeolite, silica fume and fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 44, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fang, C.; Ali, M.; Xie, T.; Visintin, P.; Sheikh, A.H. The influence of steel fibre properties on the shrinkage of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 242, 117993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, C.; Zhu, D.; Li, N.; Deng, Y. Development of ultra-high performance geopolymer concrete (UHPGC): Influence of steel fiber on mechanical properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 112, 103670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shi, C.; Wu, Z.; Xiao, J.; Wang, D.; Huang, Z.; Fang, Z. A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part I. Raw materials and mixture design. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ruslan, I.; Ruslan, B.; Evgenij, K. The effect of metal and polypropylene fiber on technological and physical mechanical properties of activated cement compositions. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e00882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bahmani, H.; Mostofinejad, D.; Dadvar, S.A. Fiber type and curing environment effects on the mechanical performance of UHPFRC containing zeolite. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2022, 46, 4151–4167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mostafaei, H.; Bahmani, H. Sustainable High-Performance Concrete Using Zeolite Powder: Mechanical and Carbon Footprint Analyses. Buildings 2024, 14, 3660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. ASTM C150/C150M-16; Standard Specification for Portland Cement. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  29. ASTM C618-00; Standard Specifcation for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
  30. ASTM C494/C494M-05a; Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2005; p. 10.
  31. ASTM C1437-20; Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  32. ASTM C39-12; Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
  33. Mostafaei, H.; Bahmani, H.; Mostofinejad, D.; Wu, C. A novel development of HPC without cement: Mechanical properties and sustainability evaluation. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 76, 107262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, P.; Xia, B.; Zhao, X. The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete–a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Flager, F.; Basbagill, J.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Multi-Objective Building Envelope Optimization for Life-Cycle Cost and Global Warming Potential; Taylor & Francis Group: Oxfordshire, London, UK, 2012; pp. 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hottle, T.; Hawkins, T.R.; Chiquelin, C.; Lange, B.; Young, B.; Sun, P.; Elgowainy, A.; Wang, M. Environmental life-cycle assessment of concrete produced in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 131834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, S.; Han, G.; Du, B.; Jiang, Z.; Sun, L. Carbon emissions assessment of ultra-high performance concrete in construction industry: Calculation method and case study. Energy Build. 2025, 329, 115260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mostafaei, H.; Chamasemani, N.F.; Mashayekhi, M.; Hamzehkolaei, N.S.; Santos, P. Sustainability Enhancement and Evaluation of a Concrete Dam Using Recycling. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bahmani, H.; Mostafaei, H.; Santos, P.; Fallah Chamasemani, N. Enhancing the mechanical properties of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) through silica sand replacement with steel slag. Buildings 2024, 14, 3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kong, X.; Shi, J.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Fu, Y. Sludge-based geopolymer materials: A review. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2024, 21, 1333–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tuinukuafe, A.A.; Mills, M.M.; Walder, B.J.; Fritzsching, K.J.; Jové-Colón, C.F.; Bullard, J.W.; Lapeyre, J.; McEnroe, T.; Matteo, E.N.; Rimsza, J.M. Natural carbonation of portland cement with synthetic zeolite Y as a supplementary cementitious material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 425, 136068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Miller, S.A. Supplementary cementitious materials to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from concrete: Can there be too much of a good thing? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sandanayake, M.; Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Greenhouse gas emissions of different fly ash based geopolymer concretes in building construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chamasemani, N.F.; Kelishadi, M.; Mostafaei, H.; Najvani, M.A.D.; Mashayekhi, M. Environmental impacts of reinforced concrete buildings: Comparing common and sustainable materials: A case study. Constr. Mater. 2023, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nassiri, S.; Butt, A.A.; Mateos, A.; Roy, S.; Filani, I.; Zarei, A.; Pandit, G.; Haider, M.M.; Harvey, J. Identification of Likely Alternative Supplementary Cementitious Materials in California: A Review of Supplies, Technical Performance in Concrete, Economic, and Climatic Considerations; Pavement Research Center, University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  46. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part IV: Durability properties, cost assessment, applications, and challenges. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Illankoon, I.M.C.S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Wang, J.Y. Life cycle costing for obtaining concrete credits in green star rating system in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4212–4219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mitropoulou, C.C.; Lagaros, N.D.; Papadrakakis, M. Life-cycle cost assessment of optimally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2011, 96, 1311–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wilde, W.J.; Waalkes, S.; Harrison, R. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements; Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin: Austin, UT, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  50. Renne, N.; Kara De Maeijer, P.; Craeye, B.; Buyle, M.; Audenaert, A. Sustainable assessment of concrete repairs through life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Infrastructures 2022, 7, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kendall, A.; Keoleian, G.A.; Helfand, G.E. Integrated life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost analysis model for concrete bridge deck applications. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2008, 14, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mah, C.M.; Fujiwara, T.; Ho, C.S. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3415–3427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bahmani, H.; Mostofinejad, D. A novel high-performance concrete based on calcium oxide-activated materials reinforced with different fibers. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 15, 100201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bahmani, H.; Mostofinejad, D. Sustainable high-performance concrete with sugar factory lime waste-activated slag and fiber reinforcement: Mechanical properties and environmental impact. Constr. Build. Mater. 2025, 464, 140202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shao, R.; Wu, C.; Li, J.; Liu, Z.; Wu, P.; Yang, Y. Mechanical behaviour and environmental benefit of eco-friendly steel fibre-reinforced dry UHPC incorporating high-volume fly ash and crumb rubber. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 65, 105747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moradikhou, A.B.; Esparham, A.; Avanaki, M.J. Physical & mechanical properties of fiber reinforced metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 251, 118965. [Google Scholar]
Jcs 09 00222 g001
Figure 1. Particle size distribution of materials.
Figure 1. Particle size distribution of materials.
Jcs 09 00222 g001
Jcs 09 00222 g002
Figure 2. Test setup for compressive strength test.
Figure 2. Test setup for compressive strength test.
Jcs 09 00222 g002
Jcs 09 00222 g003
Figure 3. Slump results for various mixing designs.
Figure 3. Slump results for various mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g003
Jcs 09 00222 g004
Figure 4. Specific weight results of different mixing designs.
Figure 4. Specific weight results of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g004
Jcs 09 00222 g005
Figure 5. Stress–strain curves of different mixing designs.
Figure 5. Stress–strain curves of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g005
Jcs 09 00222 g006
Figure 6. Compressive strength results of different mixing designs.
Figure 6. Compressive strength results of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g006
Jcs 09 00222 g007
Figure 7. Young’s modulus results of different mixing designs.
Figure 7. Young’s modulus results of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g007
Jcs 09 00222 g008
Figure 8. Carbon footprint results of different mixing designs.
Figure 8. Carbon footprint results of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g008
Jcs 09 00222 g009
Figure 9. Strength per environmental impact of different mixing designs.
Figure 9. Strength per environmental impact of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g009
Jcs 09 00222 g010
Figure 10. Costs of different mixing designs.
Figure 10. Costs of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g010
Jcs 09 00222 g011
Figure 11. Strength-per-cost of different mixing designs.
Figure 11. Strength-per-cost of different mixing designs.
Jcs 09 00222 g011
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of fibers.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of fibers.
PropertyUnit Weight (kg/m3)Tensile Strength (MPa)Diameter (mm)Length (mm)
BA9106000.0750
ST78508000.735
GL270010000.0418
PP9106000.0196
Table 2. Chemical compositions of the materials used in the study (%).
Table 2. Chemical compositions of the materials used in the study (%).
Chemical Composition: % by WeightASTM C150 LimitCementZeolite
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3)--11.0
Silicon dioxide (SiO2)-22.068.5
Iron oxide (Fe2O3)-3.00.7
Calcium oxide (CaO)-64.00.6
Magnesium oxide (MgO)≤6.01.0-
Sulfur trioxide (SO3)≤3.51.0-
Na2O--2.8
K2O--4.4
Loss on ignition (LOI)≤3.0-12
Moisture content---
Table 3. Composition of the mixtures (kg/m3).
Table 3. Composition of the mixtures (kg/m3).
DesignationType I CementZeolite ISilica SandZeolite IIWaterSPSTBAPPGL
HPC9451058659619747----
HPC (ST)9451058659619747117.75---
HPC (BA)9451058659619747-13.65--
HPC (PP)9451058659619552--13.65-
HPC (GL)9451058659619552---42
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

Bahmani, H.; Mostafaei, H. Impact of Fibers on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of High-Performance Concrete Incorporating Zeolite. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050222

AMA Style

Bahmani H, Mostafaei H. Impact of Fibers on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of High-Performance Concrete Incorporating Zeolite. Journal of Composites Science. 2025; 9(5):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bahmani, Hadi, and Hasan Mostafaei. 2025. "Impact of Fibers on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of High-Performance Concrete Incorporating Zeolite" Journal of Composites Science 9, no. 5: 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050222

APA Style

Bahmani, H., & Mostafaei, H. (2025). Impact of Fibers on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of High-Performance Concrete Incorporating Zeolite. Journal of Composites Science, 9(5), 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs9050222

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop