Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB) Infused with Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE) Pellets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infusing plastic waste to concrete and masonry structures is an increasingly common industry practice that has the potential to create an environment-friendly material that can improve some of the material's properties, craft a novel means to repurpose plastic waste, and reduce the need for mining aggregates in the environment. This concept has been studied extensively in different forms of concrete, as shown by several studies; however, there is a dearth of studies focusing on the incorporation plastic waste in concrete hollow blocks (CHB). In this study, we aim to fill that gap by investigating on the effects of incorporating low-density polyethylene (LDPE), a commonly used plastic material, to CHB on its compressive strength and bulk density. Samples of varying percentages of LDPE replacement by volume (0, 10, 20, 30 and 40%) were fabricated and tested. Results showed a general trend of decreasing compressive strength and bulk density upon increasing the amount of LDPE pellets in CHB, which was also observed in previous studies. However, the compressive strength of CHB increased at 10% LDPE replacement, a result similar to a previous study. It was inferred that the strength of the plastic material could have a direct contribution to the compressive strength of CHB at low percentage of aggregate replacement. Statistical analysis showed that the mix with 10% LDPE pellets as replacement to sand was the best among the samples tested. It was shown that CHB infused with LDPE pellets has a higher compressive strength than what is normally used in the Philippines. It was concluded that based on compressive strength and bulk density, LDPE pellets is a viable material to use as partial replacement to sand in non-load bearing CHB.
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".