The Potential of Replacing Concrete with Sand and Recycled Polycarbonate Composites: Compressive Strength Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete contributes 8% of all global carbon emissions, making the need to find substitutes critical for environmental sustainability. Research has indicated the potential for recycled plastics to be used as concrete substitutes. This study extends existing research by investigating the use of polycarbonate (PC) in plastic sand bricks as a mechanical equivalent to concrete. PC has high compressive strength, durability, impact strength, thermal resistivity, clarity, fatigue resistance, and UV resistance. This work provides a method and mold to produce a matrix of sand–plastic sample compositions with dimensions adhering to the ASTM D695 standard for compressive properties of rigid plastic. Compositions of 0% (control), 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% sand by weight were tested. Samples were tested for compressive strength until yield and stress–strain behaviors were plotted. The results for 100% PC demonstrated an average and maximum compressive strength of 71 MPa and 72 MPa, respectively. The 50% PC and 50% sand composition yielded an average and maximum compressive strength of 71 MPa and 73 MPa, respectively, with an increase in compressive stiffness and transition to shear failure resembling concrete. With a composite density of 1.86 g/cm3 compared to concrete’s average of 2.4 g/cm3, and a compressive strength exceeding commercial concrete demands of 23.3 MPa to 30.2 MPa, this lightweight alternative meets the strength demands of concrete, reduces the need for new construction materials, and provides an additional recycling opportunity for nonbiodegradable waste plastic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".