MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics of mortar and concrete containing fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles

2009· article· en· W2012102428 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction and Building Materials · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Materials sciencePolyethylene terephthalateMortarAbsorption of waterFinenessCompressive strengthSlumpComposite materialSuperplasticizerConcrete slump test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of lightweight aggregate concrete using fine aggregate that is manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. Investigations on waste PET lightweight aggregate concrete included three phases: examination of the properties of waste PET lightweight aggregates (WPLA), analysis of the properties of mortar when WPLA was used as fine aggregate, and analysis of the properties of concrete when WPLA was used as fine aggregate. The results of the first phase showed that the WPLA had a density of 1390 kg/m3, a water absorption of 0% and a bulk density of 844 kg/m3. WPLA fineness modulus (F.M.), however, was 4.11, which is higher than the F.M. of river sand. This is because the WPLA was single graded. The results of the second phase showed that for the mortar, in which the WPLA was used as a fine aggregate, the flow value increased, while the compressive strength decreased proportionally to the addition of WPLA with elapsed time. In addition, the amount of water absorption by unit area was higher than for the control mortar (without WPLA) when the WPLA content was either 40% or 60%. For the third phase, the results showed that the slump of the WPLA concrete increased as the WPLA content increased regardless of the water-cement ratio (W/C). In comparison to the control concrete, the 28-day WPLA concrete compressive strength decreased by 5%, 15% and 30%, with an increase of WPLA content of 25%, 50% and 75%, respectively. In addition, for a W/C of 0.49, the structural efficiency (compressive strength/density ratio) of the concrete containing 25% of WPLA was higher than that for the control concrete.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it