Manufacturing and characterization of braidtruded fiber reinforced polymer rebar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebar can serve as a noncorrosive alternative to conventional steel rebar for use in concrete reinforcement. By combining pultrusion and braiding into a single manufacturing process called braidtrusion, FRP rebar consisting of both unidirectional and off‐axis fibers can be produced. In this study, a variation on the braidtrusion process was introduced, utilizing an impregnation ring and dieless curing system to produce high quality FRP rebar in a continuous manner. The resulting rebar was characterized to assess the quality and consistency of the manufacturing process. Degree of cure, braid angle, cross‐sectional area, and fiber volume fractions were measured, and a general examination of the rebar microstructure was conducted. In addition, analytical equations based on previous works were presented to predict braid angle and cross‐sectional area of the resulting rebar based on manufacturing parameters. The predictions made using these equations were found to be in good agreement with the experimental results, and can be used to facilitate future design and manufacturing of FRP rebar. POLYM. COMPOS., 39:337–350, 2018. © 2016 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".