A comprehensive review: The impact of recycling polypropylene fiber on lightweight concrete performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the pursuit of sustainable and durable building materials, this study delves into the potential application of polypropylene fiber (PPF) as a reinforcement material in lightweight concrete. With increasing emphasis on environmentally responsible construction, enhancing the mechanical performance of lightweight concrete is crucial. Although PPF is not a cementitious material, its integration into concrete mixtures has shown promise in improving properties such as compressive strength, flexural strength, and ductility. A detailed analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of various PPF types was conducted to assess their influence on concrete behavior. In addition, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to identify existing gaps and establish a foundation for further investigation. The study also evaluates the effects of PPF inclusion on failure modes, stress–strain behavior, and crack propagation in lightweight concrete. Results indicate that incorporating PPF significantly enhances toughness, crack resistance, and energy absorption capacity, contributing to a more ductile and resilient material. These improvements are particularly relevant for structural applications requiring both reduced weight and enhanced durability. However, the performance gains are closely related to the fiber type, dosage, and distribution, underscoring the need for careful mix design and optimization. By addressing limitations in previous studies and offering a nuanced understanding of PPF’s role in lightweight concrete, this research contributes valuable insights for the development of durable, sustainable building materials. The findings serve as a foundation for future research and practical applications, supporting the broader adoption of fiber-reinforced concrete in environmentally conscious construction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".