Comparative Study of the Adhesion of Reinforcements in Polymer Concrete and Cementitious Concrete
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is part of a sustainable innovation initiative, proposing the use of plastic waste as a binder, combined with flint, for the formulation of environmentally friendly polymer concrete. The aim is to demonstrate the technical feasibility of replacing traditional cementitious binders while ensuring reliable adhesion between metal reinforcements and the polymer matrix. A comparative study was conducted between conventional cement concrete and several formulations based on melted plastics. The results showed that PET + flint concrete offers remarkable adhesion (8.06 MPa), superior to cement concrete (6.59 MPa), for which the values set by the BAEL 91 and Eurocode 2 standard are between 2.8 and 3.2 MPa. Although HDPE and PP-based concretes have slightly lower adhesion, they exceed the usual reference values while displaying improved compressive strength, in line with previous studies. These results confirm the feasibility of polymer concretes reinforced with reinforcement for specific uses such as the prefabrication of components for use in roads, networks and various other applications, as well as in wet areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it