Production of novel reinforcing rods of waste polyester, polypropylene, and cotton as alternatives to reinforcement steel rods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the development of novel reinforcing rods produced from waste polyester, polypropylene, and cotton ropes treated with epoxy resin, as a sustainable alternative to conventional steel reinforcement. Compared with steel bars, the treated ropes (TR) provide several advantages, including light weight, low cost, corrosion resistance, ease of application, and alignment with sustainable development goals. Experimental testing was carried out to evaluate their physical, mechanical, and durability properties. The results showed that the bond strengths of polyester, polypropylene, and cotton ropes were lower than those of steel rods by 63.3, 69.0, and 76.1%, respectively; however, the ropes exhibited comparable elongation capacity, zero water absorption after epoxy treatment (except cotton), and superior resistance to corrosion and alkali attack. The performance mechanisms were analyzed, revealing that rope failure was governed primarily by tensile rupture rather than debonding, indicating higher rope strength relative to bond capacity with concrete. Furthermore, empirical models were proposed to predict the stress–strain and bond behavior of the TR. These findings confirm that although the tensile and bonding capacities of the ropes remain lower than steel, their environmental benefits, corrosion resistance, and cost-effectiveness make them promising candidates for eco-friendly reinforcement solutions in certain structural applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".