Characteristics of mortar and concrete containing fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".