MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303614140 · doi:10.3390/buildings12101589

Material Characterization of Locally Available Textile Fabrics for Structural Applications

2022· article· en· W4303614140 on OpenAlexaff
Safeer Abbas, Rizwan Amjad, Moncef L. Nehdi, Shahid Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTextileUltimate tensile strengthYarnMaterials scienceComposite materialPlain weaveFiberFiber typeFabric structureCharacterization (materials science)Structural engineeringEngineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current era, rehabilitation and strengthening of reinforced concrete structures is a major need due to premature structural damage owing to various environmental effects, natural hazards and major modifications in the existing building use. Textile fabrics can be an economical and viable option in comparison to traditional strengthening techniques. Therefore, this study was planned to investigate the use of locally available textile fabrics for structural applications leading to economical and sustainable solutions. Sixteen fabrics were collected randomly from the local market and a series of tests including microscopic analysis, mass per unit area, ends and picks count, yarn number and uniaxial tensile strength were conducted to explore the most suitable textile fabric from strength and application aspects. Moreover, rectangular textile-reinforced mortar specimens were prepared incorporating those textile fabrics. Tested textile fabric specimens exhibited mass per unit area in the range of 117 to 1145 g/m2 depending on the fabric types. It was observed that tensile strength of the tested textile fabric depends on fiber composition, ends and picks count, yarn number and weave type. The greater the number of yarns in a fabric, the denser it will be and therefore it will be stronger in either direction (warp and weft). It was observed that the tensile strength in warp direction was higher than in weft direction due to the higher number of yarns in the warp direction. For instance, tested specimen TF16 showed ultimate tensile loads of 2890 and 2600 N in warp and weft directions, respectively. Furthermore, plain weave type fabric showed higher strength compared to that of the twill weave. It can also be argued that among the sixteen selected fabric specimens, plain weave fabric (i.e., glass) was found most suitable for textile-reinforced mortar applications due to adequate spacing and alternative movement of yarns, which leads to a stronger bond with the matrix and ultimately achieving higher tensile strength.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207