4.6 Article

Enhanced Acoustic Properties of a Novel Prepacked Aggregates Concrete Reinforced with Waste Polypropylene Fibers

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15031173

关键词

acoustic behavior; prepacked aggregates fiber-reinforced concrete; waste polypropylene fiber; sound absorption coefficient

资金

  1. Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia [IF-PSAU-2021/01/18918]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the performance of prepacked aggregates fiber-reinforced concrete (PAFRC) with adequate acoustic characteristics. The results show that the inclusion of waste polypropylene (PP) fibers slightly affects the strength and acoustic properties of PAFRC, but improves its tensile strength and sound insulation performance, especially at higher fiber dosages.
This research aimed to investigate the performance of prepacked aggregates fiber-reinforced concrete (PAFRC) with adequate acoustic characteristics for various applications. PAFRC is a newly developed concrete made by arranging and packing aggregates and short fibers in predetermined formworks, then inserting a grout mixture into the voids amongst the aggregate particles using a pump or gravity mechanism. After a one-year curing period, the effects of utilizing waste polypropylene (PP) fibers on the strength and acoustic characteristics of PAFRC mixes were examined. Compressive and tensile strengths, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), sound absorption, and transmission loss were investigated on plain concrete and PAFRC mixtures comprising 0-1% PP fibers. The results revealed that the use of PP fibers slightly decreased the compressive strength and UPV of PAFRC mixes. The inclusion of waste PP fibers also significantly increased the tensile strength and sound insulation coefficient of PAFRC mixes, especially at higher fiber dosages. In the medium-to-high frequency ranges, more than 60% acoustic absorption coefficient was observed, indicating that PAFRC specimens have good sound insulation properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据