article · Scientific Reports
The increasing demand for sustainable construction materials calls for innovative strategies that reduce natural resource consumption while maintaining or enhancing material performance. This study investigates the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) as an internal curing agent in high-performance fiber-reinforced composites (HPFRC) incorporating brick waste sand (BWS) and ceramic waste powder (CWP). BWS and CWP were introduced as partial replacements for river sand (RS) and cement, respectively, to promote waste valorization and improve particle packing. PEG was employed to facilitate internal curing, enhancing hydration efficiency and overall matrix quality. Fresh and hardened properties of the developed HPFRC mixtures were evaluated through workability, compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile response, and water absorption tests. Microstructural analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) was conducted to assess hydration products, matrix densification, and interfacial bonding. Results indicate that PEG improved workability by compensating for the reduced slump caused by the angular texture of BWS. CWP contributed to better particle packing and matrix refinement, producing a denser microstructure. The optimized mixture containing 1.5% PEG, 50% BWS, and 10% CWP achieved the best overall performance, with compressive strength of 63 MPa, tensile strength of approximately 7 MPa, flexural strength of 15.89 MPa, and water absorption of 1.15%. Microstructural observations confirmed improved matrix densification and interfacial bonding, demonstrating the synergistic effect of PEG-mediated internal curing and waste-derived materials. These findings validate the technical feasibility of incorporating PEG, BWS, and CWP in HPFRC, providing a practical approach for producing high-performance, resource-efficient composites with enhanced mechanical and durability characteristics.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-58428-8
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.