Production of rope-shaped polymeric rebars woven with recycled plastic fibers made of polyethylene terephthalate and manufacturing of cutting machine, fiber weaving machine, and final fiber combining machine

Abstract

The invention involves creating rope-shaped rebars from woven fibers. These rebars reinforce reinforced concrete beams, replacing steel reinforcements. The fibers used in this invention have diameters and lengths similar to those of steel reinforcements. Three machines were built to produce these fibers. Machine No. 1 cuts bottles of varying widths to create ribbon-shaped threads. These threads are combined in Machine No. 2 and woven together in Machine No. 3. Each rope comprises three strands, and the woven fiber rope is created by weaving these strands together. To replace a 16-diameter steel reinforcement with a fiber rope, three fiber strands, each containing 40 ribbon-shaped strands with a width of 1.7 mm, are woven together, resulting in a rope with 120 ribbon-shaped strands. This process leads to the production of woven fiber rope-shaped polymeric rebars.

Description

Production of rope-shaped polymeric rebars woven with recycled plastic fibers made of polyethylene terephthalate and manufacturing of cutting machine, fiber weaving machine, and final fiber combining machine

[0001] Production of rope-shaped polymeric rebars woven with recycled polyethylene terephthalate fibers and the manufacture construction of rebar production machines and creation of a rebar production line.

[0002] Cutting machine (machine number 1) to cut the bottle and convert it into ribbon-shaped fibers. Weaving machine (machine no. 2) to weave together the fibers of the strip. Combining device (device number 3) for combining woven ribbon fibers and producing polymer-plastic rebars

[0003] The field and technical field of the invention related to civil engineering, structures, and fixed buildings

[0004] In the mid-1960s, PET was used to classify films, and then in the early 1970s, it entered the bottling industry with the development of three-axis blowing techniques. The first attempt to reinforce concrete by placing steel fibers was made by (Romualdi and Batson) in the early 1960s in America [1]. One of the applications of PET is to be used as fibers in reinforced or unreinforced concrete. Reinforced concrete is one of the main construction materials. Concrete is used in the construction of various structures such as highways, buildings, dams, airports, water and sewage pipelines, water and liquid storage tanks, and many other structures that are known as the infrastructure of modern societies, They can be used. Shrinkage resulting from the drying of concrete in its early ages is known to be the most important cause of cracks in standard and self-compacting concrete, and the results of the tests show that using the right amount of fibers reduces and prevents the propagation of cracks. The use of polymer fibers as an alternative to thermal reinforcement has been widely spread throughout the world since 1980 [2]. According to (Foti), with the addition of strip fibers, the bending strength increased by 3.9% compared to normal concrete. Also, by cutting the bottles into fibers (length 70 mm and width 1 to 2 mm) and using these fibers in concrete, it is possible to improve the plasticity, energy absorption, and behavior after cracking of concrete [3.4]. (Borg) and colleagues used recycled PET fibers in smooth and wavy forms with lengths of 3 and 5 cm and in different percentages in concrete. The results showed that the addition of these fibers reduces the compressive strength by 8.5% and improves the flexural strength of concrete. Also, wavy fibers have better-bending performance than smooth fibers [5]. Different forms of using PET in concrete including particles, fibers, and strips were studied by (Foti). The results showed that the use of these forms of PET leads to limited cracking and more ductility. Also, different forms of using PET in concrete including particles, fibers, and strips were studied. Finally, discrete (fiber) or continuous (tape) PET was used to limit and prevent concrete cracking. The use of PET strips can be suggested as a concentrate reinforcement (instead of steel), for structures or secondary structural elements, even if detailed studies and experimental campaigns are required [6]. (Dawood and Adnan) investigated the use of PET waste recycling as longitudinal tensile bars in reinforced concrete beams. Experimental results showed that the weak bond between concrete and PET leads to the brittle behavior of these beams [7]. (Falih) et al. investigated the effect of using PET bottle waste as reinforcing bars in concrete beams. PET bottles were cut into long strips of different widths, thicknesses, and shapes. The results showed that twisted fibers with epoxy create a relatively good bond with the surrounding concrete and the ductility of the beam increases [8]. (Choi) et al evaluated the strengthening of concrete columns with PET packaging. The results showed that complex PET columns show flexible behavior compared to other samples [9]. One of the methods of recycling these waste materials is to use them in different forms in concrete. Various studies have been conducted by different researchers to investigate the impact of using PET in concrete and the results presented. A convenient way to recycle PET bottles is to use them as reinforced fibers to make fiber concrete. The volume of fibers in this type of concrete is considered between 0.3 and 1.5% of the volume of concrete [10.11.12]. (Montedo) and colleagues showed that PET fibers are destroyed in a chloride environment for a long time and lose their efficiency

[0013] . (Khalid) et al. investigated the mechanical properties of PET fiber concrete with different shapes. The results showed that the performance of ring-shaped fibers is more suitable than irregular and wire fibers

[0014] . The possibility of using waste plastic strips to replace primary reinforcing steel bars to improve the bending capacity of concrete beams was investigated by (Abdullah) et al. The results showed that the load capacity of the beams with 9 PET strips is about half of the beams with 3 steel bars

[0015] . (Qaidi) et al investigated the effectiveness of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) on the mechanical properties of PET concrete. 54 cylindrical concrete samples with different PETs (0, 25, and 50% instead of sand) and water-cement ratios (0.4, 0.45, and 0.55) were processed and tested. Experimental findings showed that the use of a layer of CFRP fabric cover increased the final load of the samples to a level not lower than that of unconfined concrete without PET particles, and the recovery ratio varied from 51% to 140%

[0016] . The performance of concrete using nylon waste fibers instead of coarse aggregates was investigated by (Ali) et al. Recycled nylon fibers with different volume fractions (0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1%) were used in high-performance concrete. The results showed that nylon fibers are generally harmful to the compressive strength and density of concrete and are very useful in increasing the tensile strength of splitting and resistance to cracking of concrete. In addition, this type of recycled concrete was more flexible and environmentally friendly compared to ordinary plain concrete

[0017] . The correlation between compressive strength and electrical resistance of concrete with steel waste slag as a substitute for coarse aggregate was investigated by (Piro) et al. It was concluded that steel slag content increased the compressive strength and decreased the electrical resistance of concrete

[0018] . The properties of geopolymer concrete containing recycled plastic aggregates modified with nano-silica particles were investigated by (Ahmed) et al. Experimental and numerical results showed that the use of the optimal percentage of nano-silica can significantly restore most of the properties of this type of concrete, which has been destroyed due to the addition of plastic particles [19.20]. Some machine learning algorithms were used to develop the best framework for predicting the shear strength of recycled aggregate concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement by (Jayasinghe) et al. Experimental and numerical values were compared with the values of different codes and the results were acceptable [21.22]. Reinforced concrete beams treated with different amounts of electric arc furnace slag, fly ash, and mine waste were tested under bending and shear tests by (Santamaria) and colleagues. The bending results showed a linear elastic behavior up to the loading level of 80% of the ultimate load and a yield zone that quickly led to beam failure. Shear results showed that in terms of the capacity curve, it shows two main regions related to the states before and after the formation of a normal shear crack at an angle of 45 degrees, and the proposed models are consistent with experimental observations [23, 24]. (Shibayama and Nishiyama) studied the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with fly ash with and without shear reinforcement. A shear test was performed on 10 beams under two curves. The results showed that with the reduction of the shear opening ratio, the shear crack and ultimate shear strength of these beams increase and the existing design equations for shear crack and ultimate shear strength can be applied to these beams as well

[0025] . Electrochemical oxidation of recycled carbon fibers for improved interaction over alkali-activated composites was studied by (Li) et al. The compressive and bending strength of the matrix with these fibers increased by 25% and 19%, respectively, compared to simple composites

[0026] . The use of recycled carbon fibers recovered from reinforced epoxides in cement composites was investigated by (Li) et al. The results showed that the addition of these fibers leads to an increase in bending and compressive strength compared to simple matrices. In addition, recycled carbon fibers with a higher degree of polymerization showed better surface interaction with cement matrices and the reinforcing effect increased

[0027] . As discussed, most of the past studies focused on the use of PET particles as a partial replacement of fine aggregates in concrete. Few studies have been conducted on the use of PET materials, including layers, strips, and rebars, as a structural element in reinforced concrete structures. It seems that due to the lack of proper connection between PET strips and concrete and the low strength of these strips, the final loading and ductility of reinforced concrete beams with tensile PET rebars is low compared to reinforced concrete beams with steel rebars. In this design, PET strips are woven to collect and produce rope-shaped fibers. These woven fibers with uneven textures and smooth surfaces are used as tensile bars in reinforced concrete beams. The tensile steel reinforcements are replaced by these braided ropes and the test specimens are subjected to two-point loading. In addition, in a test sample, these PET ropes are used as transverse reinforcements and tested similarly to other samples. Capacity curves, ductility ratio, and structural behavior of these beams are presented and compared with analytical and theoretical findings. However, the adaptation of PET ropes for structural applications is becoming less popular due to the lack of proper design guidelines. Therefore, to encourage the practical application of these waste materials, it is necessary to establish a framework for predicting the bending capacity of these beams. Theoretical prediction has shown good accuracy compared to experimental and analytical values. It seems that due to the lack of proper connection between PET strips and concrete and the low strength of these strips, the final loading and ductility of reinforced concrete beams with tensile PET bars is low compared to reinforced concrete beams with steel bars. In this design, PET strips are woven to collect and produce rope-shaped fibers. These woven fibers are used as tensile bars in reinforced concrete beams. The tensile steel reinforcements are replaced by these braided ropes and the test specimens are subjected to two-point loading (four-point bending). In addition, in a test sample, these PET ropes are used as transverse reinforcements (stirrup) and tested similarly to other samples. Capacity curves, ductility ratio, and structural behavior of these beams are presented

[0028] . The difference between this invention and the records in question is that each of the previous researchers and scientists has conducted experiments in different ways based on their own methods, But none of them have produced and used a sample of rope-shaped polymer rebar woven with recycled plastic fibers and only tested the various uses of fibers in the structure, that this is the innovation of the work compared to the previous records and also the technical superiority of this invention compared to the records of the past, which is the production of a new product in the field of construction that can replace steel rebars and reinforcements in the structure based on the designer's opinion, which features such as flexural strengthening, increasing plasticity, cleaning the environment, lightening and reducing the weight of concrete structures, as well as being more economical in terms of current costs in a project than the steel used in the structure.

[0005] This invention involves the production of rope-shaped rebars woven from polyethylene terephthalate fibers (Polymer-Plastic Rebar). It is used to reinforce the bending of reinforced concrete beams, replacing steel (tensile) reinforcements. The fibers have diameters and lengths similar to those of the steel reinforcements. Three machines were constructed to produce these fibers. Machine No. 1 was designed to cut bottles of varying widths. The ribbon-shaped threads produced by Machine No. 1 were combined in Machine No. 2 and woven together by Machine No. 3. As Machine 3 moves toward the fixed base column, the three bundles of fibers wrap and weave around each other, producing fiber ropes. Each rope comprises three strands, and a fiber rope is created when these strands are woven together. To replace the fiber rope with a 16-diameter steel reinforcement, 3 fiber strands are woven together, each containing 40 ribbon-shaped strands with a width of 1.7 mm. Finally, the resulting rope contains 120 ribbon-shaped strands. Then, the fiber rope is measured, and cut, and its two ends are secured by a fastener, and woven fiber rope-shaped polymeric rebars are produced.

[0006] In concrete structures, the compressive part is replaced by concrete, and the tensile part is replaced by steel reinforcement. After applying the load and bearing the force exceeding the capacity of a structure, the structure is destroyed after not bearing the load which causes failure in the structure. The purpose of inventing these fiber-woven rope-shaped plastic polymer rebars and replacing them instead of steel rebars in the structure is to solve the mentioned technical problem, which increases the structure's plasticity and the duration of the structure's destruction after failure to bear the load, It delays and increases. Brittle materials have a sudden failure without warning. At the same time, malleable materials don't have sudden failure and absorb a lot of energy when flowing. For the structure not to be damaged by the earthquake and its elements not to flow, the dimensions of the sections and materials are designed in such a way that the cost of its implementation is very high. In fact, by using brittle materials, the entire structure is kept in a linear area during an earthquake and incurs heavy costs. But by using ductility, part of the earthquake force is borne by the linear region. If the earthquake exceeds the linear area; The non-linear region depletes its energy. With this strategy, the structure is made much cheaper and lighter. If a structure enters the nonlinear region, it may not collapse, but it will certainly no longer be serviceable. Because its elements entered the super-resilient area and will no longer have the previous strength. Highly sensitive buildings (such as hospitals, crisis management centers, nuclear power plants, etc.) should not lose their services after an earthquake. These buildings must remain in the linear region throughout the earthquake and have reversible behaviors. Cracking and destruction of concrete are caused by excessive loading. Events that occur as a result of loading exceeding the capacity of the structure. The stress produced due to high loading has led to the occurrence of distinct cracks that reveal excessive loading and load-bearing points. Heat loss cracks, which are caused by temperature differences (loss of hydration temperature of parts of the structure at different speeds and cooling or heating of a part of the structure at a different degree and speed compared to another part of the structure) to come. This temperature difference causes the change of differential volume in concrete, when the stresses caused by the change of differential volume exceed the tensile strength of concrete, cracks will occur in concrete. Stress forces are related to the relative deformation of concrete; this deformation is a function of time. Therefore, the relative deformation of concrete under the applied loads over time causes creep cracks. During the operation period, the presence of these defects can cause irreparable damage. Also, material fatigue occurs when the material is subjected to repeated or fluctuating stresses, which leads to the sudden failure of the part. The main reason fatigue failure is so dangerous is that it happens without prior knowledge and visibility. Fatigue results in a fracture with a brittle appearance, without any impurity deformation at the fracture. Usually, the fracture surface on the macroscopic scale is perpendicular to the principal tensile stress direction. Usually, the fatigue fracture surface is recognized by the appearance of the fracture surface, which consists of a smooth area resulting from the wear action with crack propagation in the section and an uneven area that is broken in a soft way when the section does not bear the load. The use of fiber-reinforced concrete in various industries is due to the favorable mechanical properties, lightness of the structure, good energy absorption capacity, and high initial resistance under impact loads, as well as the new generation of fiber concrete with excellent ductility and crack control ability. Since fiber concrete is exposed to impact and heavy loads, due to its flexibility, it shows better performance. The characteristics of fibers and longitudinal bars have a positive effect on the bending characteristics of reinforced concrete beams.

[0007] The purpose of this invention was to produce polymer-plastic-fibrous-rope-shaped-woven rebars made of polyethylene terephthalate, to strengthen the bending of reinforced concrete beams, which is similar to steel reinforcements in the beams, to replace these polymer-plastic rebars instead of Tensile rebars and stirrups of the reference concrete beam designed by the inventor. These polymer-plastic rebars are completely similar to the reinforcements used in the reference beam in terms of the diameter and length of the sample. To perform this experiment, in the first stage, it was necessary to build a device for cutting plastic bottles, after designing and building this device by the inventor, the bottles were cut to different widths, and then to combine them, it was necessary to build a second device. After designing and manufacturing, the ribbon-shaped strings from the first stage (the first machine) were combined with each other (by the third machine) in the second stage (the second machine) and finally fiber ropes were woven and produced. After conducting various tests such as tensile strength tests, etc., it was concluded that the more the number of strands in a rope and the smaller their width, the better quality rope is produced and the better results are obtained. In this method, rope-shaped woven fibers of polyethylene terephthalate are produced in order to replace longitudinal and stirrup steel bars in reinforced concrete beams. In the first step, plastic bottles were cut by a machine according to Figure (1) of the machine made for cutting bottles. Bottles were cut to different widths and strips were produced. These PET tapes were tested and the tensile strength is presented in Table (1). Where, Fyp= ultimate tensile strength of PET tapes, ε = ultimate tensile strain, and L = length of PET tapes. As shown, the maximum tensile strength belongs to a strip with a width of 1.7 mm. In the first step to producing PET fiber ropes, after washing the glass of recycled plastic bottles, the ends of the bottles are cut with a cutter, and then they are placed inside the machine and the bottles are cut into different widths. In the second step, fiber strands are prepared for weaving the rope. To weave fiber strands and produce fiber rope, it was necessary to design and build a second device by the inventor. After the necessary investigations and the construction of several devices, the final device for rope weaving was produced. For fiber rope weaving, each rope consists of three strands, and after weaving these three strands together, fiber rope is produced. Each of these strands has a different width and number according to the diameter of the replaced rebar. To replace the fiber rope instead of the 16-diameter bar, the strands must be prepared as follows. The number of 3 fiber rope strands, each of which contains 40 fiber strands with a width of 1.7 mm, in the first stage of weaving, these 40 strands are woven together by the machine, and finally, after the 3 fiber strands are woven, these 3 strands woven together to produce a fiber rope with a diameter of 16. It should be noted that the number of strands (40) and the width of the strands (1.7 mm) are directly proportional to the diameter of the reinforcements used in the reference beam. For example, if the bottom reinforcement (tensile) is a rebar with a diameter of 16, a rope with a diameter of 16 mm must be made. To make this rope, 3 strands must be made, each strand containing 40 strands with a width of 1.7 mm. Finally, the woven rope consists of 120 ribbon-shaped strands. To replace the rope with the 12-diameter bar, 20 strands should be used to make the final 3 strands, and finally, after weaving three strands, a 12-diameter fiber rope is produced, which includes 60 strip-shaped fiber strands. As shown, the best results are for PET strips with a width of 1.7 mm. These strips are wrapped around each other by a reel for collection. As shown in figure (2). The weaving of these PET tapes and the production of fiber strands is done by a simple machine as shown in Figure (3) of the machine made to weave the strands. According to Figure (4) of the means of combining fine strands into the final rope Figure (5) of the fixed base column and Figure (6) of woven fiber rope, each rope is woven by three strands. The diameter of these PET ropes is equal to the diameter of the replaced steel bars. The way of placement of fibers is used instead of longitudinal and transverse (stirrup) steel bars according to table (2). After the preparation of PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar), tensile steel bars, and stirrups are replaced with ropes, and test samples are made. Six test specimens with different details were made and loaded under two-point loading (four-point bending). Steel reinforcements are replaced by PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) and different examples are presented as shown in Table (2). Where S represents the steel reinforcement, P represents the PET rope and PS represents the fiber stirrup. The summary of the fiber manufacturing steps is presented in Figure (7) of the details of the reinforced concrete beam specimen. After the preparation of PET ropes, tensile steel bars, and stirrups are replaced with ropes, and test specimens are made. Geometric dimensions, arrangement of reinforcements, and type of loading are presented in Figure (7). Six test specimens were made with different details and loaded under two-point loading (four-point bending), the steel reinforcements were replaced with PET ropes, and the different samples are presented in Table (2). , S=Still Reinforcement, P= PET Rope and PS= Pet Stirrup. The specifications of the tensile test of rope-shaped fibers are as follows: PET rope (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) with a length of 390 mm and a diameter of 16 mm is tested by the tensile strength device according to figure (8). The tensile strength of rope-shaped fibers with the screw tension testing device, Figure (10) of the tensile strength test of rope-shaped fibers with the reinforcement tension testing device is provided. Test conditions and results are presented in Figures (8.9.10) and Figure (11) of tensile strength test results with rebar tensile testing device. Three PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) with a length of 390 mm and a diameter of 16 mm were tested by the tensile strength machine and the average results were presented. The test time was 17 minutes and the weight of the sample was about 49 grams. The length of the two gauges was 10 cm and the distance between the two gauges (the length of the sample between the two gauges) was 25 cm. The test speed is 10 mm / min. The maximum force was 537.5025 kg and the length of the sample was 155.45 mm. The method of destruction of the beam and the description of the cracking of the beams under the applied forces is as follows, when compressive force is applied to the beam by the hydraulic arm, according to the analysis of the structure, the upper part of the beam (the part above the normal axis line of the beam) withstands the compressive force and the lower part of the beam (the lower part of the normal axis line of the beam) is subjected to tensile force. The beam withstands the applied, shear, and axial stresses to the extent of its strength until these stresses exceed the designed allowable amount. When the stresses exceed the designed allowable amount, a crack is observed in the beam, and with the increase of the applied load, the stress applied to the beam also increases, until the beam reaches the ultimate breaking capacity and the beam breaks. As mentioned in the text, the lack of complete bonding between PET and surrounding concrete was one of the shortcomings of using PET instead of steel reinforcement. But in this invention, there is a good bond between PET rope and concrete. Concrete penetrates the structure of PET ropes and no slip is observed. It should be noted that all the laboratory samples and fibers have been modeled and validated with abaqus software. In the first stage, the laboratory results to check the performance of 6 beams during the test and the manner of destruction and cracking are as follows, six beams with different arrangements of reinforcing materials (according to Table 2) were tested and their crack patterns and capacity curves were presented. A two-point vertical load was applied to these test specimens and the deflection history was recorded by an LVDT under the beams.

[0008] The results of the 3S sample are as follows : 1. A sample of three steel bars 3S:

[0009] The first cracking was observed at the load of 3.5 tons (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.4 cm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 18.261 ton ( ) and deflection of 6.01 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. The cracks also start with tensile cracks in the middle of the opening, gradually spread and move towards the supports, and their width also increases. With a further increase in the amount of force, the compressive part of the beam is also destroyed in its upper part and among the incoming forces, and the concrete is also crushed at the place of application of concentrated forces. Finally, the beam had a maximum load of 18.82 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 12.38 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax, which is shown in Figures (12,13). As shown in this figure, the failure was in flexural mode, i.e., at the first stage, the tensile reinforcements started to yield, and then the compressive crushing of the concrete occurred. This failure was accompanied by large tensile cracks in the lower parts of the section in the middle span of the beam. Because the reinforcements flow, the beam exhibits a flexible behavior. It can be seen that the samples show almost linear behavior from initial loading to the occurrence of the first crack. In the beam, bending cracks first form in the middle third of the opening. After increasing the load, the number of flexural cracks increases and it is associated with the advance of the initial cracks towards the transversal direction. Finally, with the widening of the primary crack in the middle and in front of it towards the compressive zone, the beam breaks in bending. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 620 mm and 175 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 220 mm and 170 mm, respectively.

[0010] The results of the 2S sample are as follows: 2. A sample of two steel bars 2S:

[0011] The first cracking was observed at the load of 3.3 tons (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.5 cm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 12.466 tons (Py) and deflection of 4.37 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. Cracks also start with tensile cracks in the middle of the opening, gradually spread and move towards the supports, and their width also increases. With a further increase in the amount of force, the compressive part of the beam is also destroyed in its upper part and among the incoming forces, and the concrete is also crushed at the place of application of concentrated forces. Finally, the beam had a maximum load of 12.682 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 12 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax, which is shown in Figures (14,15). As shown in this figure, the failure was in flexural mode, i.e., at the first stage, the tensile reinforcements started to yield, and then the compressive crushing of the concrete occurred. This failure was accompanied by large tensile cracks in the lower parts of the section in the middle span of the beam. Because the reinforcements flow, the beam exhibits a flexible behavior. It can be seen that the samples show almost linear behavior from initial loading to the occurrence of the first crack. In the beam, bending cracks first form in the middle third of the opening. After increasing the load, the number of bending cracks increases and it is accompanied by the advance of the initial cracks towards the transversal direction. Finally, with the widening of the primary crack in the middle and in front of it towards the compressive zone, the beam breaks in bending. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 640 mm and 80 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 230 mm and 225 mm, respectively.

[0012] The results of the 2S1P sample are as follows: 3. A sample of two steel bars and one PET rope 2S1P:

[0013] The first cracking was observed at the load of 2.3 tons (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.8 cm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 12.118 tons (Py) and deflection of 3.49 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. Cracks also start with tensile cracks in the middle of the opening, gradually spread and move towards the supports, and their width also increases. With a further increase in the amount of force, the compressive part of the beam is also destroyed in its upper part and among the incoming forces, and the concrete is also crushed at the place of application of concentrated forces. Finally, the maximum beam load was 13.148 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 12.4 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax as shown in Figure (16,17). As shown in this figure, the failure was in flexural mode, i.e., at the first stage, the tensile reinforcements started to yield, and then the compressive crushing of the concrete occurred. This failure was accompanied by large tensile cracks in the lower parts of the section in the middle span of the beam. Because the reinforcements flow, the beam exhibits a flexible behavior. It can be seen that the samples show almost linear behavior from initial loading to the occurrence of the first crack. In the beam, bending cracks first form in the middle third of the opening. After increasing the load, the number of bending cracks increases and it is accompanied by the advance of the initial cracks towards the transversal direction. Finally, with the widening of the primary crack in the middle and in front of it towards the compressive zone, the beam breaks in bending. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 640 mm and 75 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 220 mm and 260 mm, respectively.

[0014] The results of the 3P sample are as follows: 4. A sample of three ropes 3P:

[0015] The first cracking was observed at the load of 1 ton (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.8 cm. Then the yielding of PET bars occurred at the load of 1.203 tons (Py) and deflection of 1.76 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. Finally, the maximum beam load was 2.204 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 14.90 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax as shown in Figure (18,19). As shown in this figure, two large cracks were formed on the lower surface of the beam and were accompanied by several oblique branches. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 140 mm and 35 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 250 mm and 180 mm, respectively. No tears were observed in the pet ropes.

[0016] The results of the 1S2P sample are as follows: 5. A sample of one steel rebar and two PET ropes 1S2P:

[0017] The first cracking was observed at the load of 3.3 tons (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.8 cm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 7.022 tons (Py) and deflection of 3.78 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. Cracks also start with tensile cracks in the middle of the opening, gradually spread and move towards the supports, and their width also increases. With a further increase in the amount of force, the compressive part of the beam is also destroyed in its upper part and among the incoming forces, and the concrete is also crushed at the place of application of concentrated forces. Finally, the beam endured the maximum load of 8.542 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 13.6 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax, which is shown in Figures (20,21). As shown in this figure, the failure was also in bending mode. Because the reinforcements flow, the beam exhibits a flexible behavior. It can be seen that the samples show almost linear behavior from initial loading to the occurrence of the first crack. In the beam, bending cracks first form in the middle third of the opening. After increasing the load, the number of bending cracks increases and it is accompanied by the advance of the initial cracks towards the transversal direction. Finally, with the widening of the primary crack in the middle and in front of it towards the compressive zone, the beam breaks in bending. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 480 mm and 70 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 230 mm and 150 mm, respectively.

[0018] The results of the PS sample are as follows: 6. A sample of all-fiber stirrups PS:

[0019] The first cracking was observed at the load of 1.3 tons (Pcr) and mid-span deflection of 0.2 cm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 12.078 tons (Py) and deflection of 1.54 cm. Higher loading caused crack propagation in the lower surface of the beam. Shear cracks appear in the supports. These cracks expand with increasing force and enter the compression part of the beam. Shear cracks extend in both tensile and compressive parts of concrete, and the concrete also crumbles in the compressive part between the two concentrated loads and the place where these concentrated forces are applied. Finally, the maximum beam load was 13.364 tons (Pmax) and the final displacement (∆u) was about 2.50 cm. This final displacement corresponds to 0.85Pmax as shown in Figures (22,23). As shown in this figure, the failure was a shear mode, that is, diagonal cracks and destruction were observed diagonally. Due to the very low amount of reinforcement, the reinforcements are broken before the concrete is crushed, and for the PS sample with a high tensile reinforcement ratio, the beam was broken due to the formation of diagonal cracks. As the diagonal crack width increases, the shear strength also decreases. Shear cracks appear near the supports and at an angle of 45 degrees. These cracks expand with increasing force and move towards the compressive part of the beam. The length and depth of crushed concrete (compressive concrete) are about 680 mm and 300 mm, respectively. The length of the largest vertical and inclined cracks (tensile concrete) is about 225 mm and 680 mm, respectively. The use of PET rope (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) instead of side reinforcement in RC beam is not suitable and shear failure occurs. This may be due to the low strength of PET ropes. Also, in the vicinity of the oblique shear crack, the local adhesion stress is high, and due to the branching action of the longitudinal rebar, the above factor is added to the factors that cause the splitting of the concrete around the rebar. As mentioned, the replacement of steel bars with PET reinforcements leads to a decrease in the depth of crushed concrete, and more compressive damage is observed. Due to the low resistance of PET ropes, the neutral axis of the reinforced concrete sections moves to the top of the section and the compression block of the beam is reduced. As shown in Figure (24) of the destruction pattern of all the beams and Figure (25) of the capacity curves of all the test samples, except for the PS sample, there is no sudden drop in the capacity curve of the test samples after the final load. In previous studies with PET strips, the stresses were mainly absorbed by the concrete before cracking, and only at the post-peak stage, did the PET strips absorb the tensile stress, resulting in this drop. The use of PET rope leads to a proper bond between the rebar and the concrete, and subsequently, a sudden drop in the capacity curve is not observed. The load-deflection curves of all samples and their ductility ratio are presented in Figure (25) and Table (3), respectively. Yield values including Pyand Δyare obtained by bilinear Paulay and Priestley curves. As shown, the maximum ductility ratio is about (3P) 8.46 and about 4.12 times higher than the 3S specimen. The ultimate deflection and ductility ratio of the specimens with PET ropes are more than other specimens, which is confirmed by previous studies. On the other hand, the use of PET ropes leads to a higher ductility ratio. As it observed, the use of PET rope instead of longitudinal steel bars causes more ductility, but in the case of PET ropes, significant results are not achieved and brittle failure occurs with large inclined shear cracks. As shown in the results, the length of vertical tensile cracks is almost the same in all specimens and the maximum difference is about 13.6%. Maximum cracking is observed in 3P specimen. Due to the low strength of PET ropes, two large cracks are formed, but due to the high ductility of these ropes, no tensile tear is observed. The depth of crushed concrete in these test specimens is different. The maximum depth belongs to the 3S specimen. Reducing the size of tensile steel bars reduces the depth of the crushed part of concrete. As mentioned, the reduction in the size of the tensile steel reinforcements leads to the reduction of the depth of crushed concrete. Therefore, this analytical result is confirmed by experimental observations. In the case of the PS specimen, crushed concrete is not observed and shear failure occurs. As stated in the previous literature, the lack of complete bonding between the PET strip / layer and the surrounding concrete was one of the drawbacks of using PET instead of steel reinforcements. However, in this invention due to the uneven texture of PET ropes, there is a significant bond between PET ropes and concrete. As shown in Figure (26) of the bond between concrete and PET rebars and Figure (27) of the bond between concrete and PET longitudinal bars, concrete penetrates the fabric of PET ropes and no slippage is observed. Ductility is directly related to curvature. When steel rebar is reduced and the area of the steel is reduced, the steel flows and the amount of stress and strain increases. This is because as the neutral web moves up, the amount of curvature becomes greater and greater, resulting in greater ductility. For better understanding, the following explanations are provided:

[0020] Curvature ductility: If a cross section is considered, the angle formed by the strain diagram is called curvature. The parameters affecting plasticity are:

[0021] 1. As tensile steel or ρ increases, ductility decreases.

[0022] 2. As the pressure steel increases, the ductility increases.

[0023] 3. By increasing the compressive strength of concrete, the plasticity of reinforced concrete increases.

[0024] 4. As ƒyincreases, ductility decreases.

[0025] 5. With the increase of silences, the ductility of the structure increases, because the confinement of the concrete increases and the lateral pressure increases, the cracking and destruction of the shear, which is dangerous and sudden, is prevented.

[0026] 6. As the compressive axial force increases, ductility decreases (causes crack propagation).

[0027] In this invention, due to the uneven and ribbed texture of polymer-plastic rebars, there is a significant bond between these rebars and concrete. To validate the experimental specimens, ABAQUS software is used for the analytical studies of these beams. For modeling in Abaqus and verifying the analytical models, the Finite Element Method (FEM) is used to develop some new analytical models and should be verified with experimental findings.

[0028] Validation of three steel reinforcement samples (3S):

[0029] The force-displacement curves of the experimental and analytical specimens of 3S are presented in Figure (28) to confirm the 3S model. As shown in Figure (28), the trends of both curves are similar and the differences are acceptable. The maximum difference between experimental and analytical magnitudes of ultimate load and ultimate displacement is about 0.56 and 4.31%. Moreover, the area under these two curves is close to each other and this difference is about 9.79 percent. Also, the specimen cracking pattern of experimental specimen and analytical model is presented in Figure (29). As it shown, the cracking pattern is very close to each other. The similar cracking patterns are shown by the same forms in this figure too.

[0030] Validation of samples of three PET ropes (3P):

[0031] The force-displacement curve of the 3P experimental specimen and the analytical model is presented in Figure (30), confirming the 3P model. The maximum difference between the experimental and analytical magnitudes of ultimate load and ultimate displacement is about 4.49 and 4.11%. Moreover, the area under these two curves is close to each other and this difference is about 4.51%. Also, the specimen cracking pattern of the experimental specimen and the analytical model are presented in Figure (31). In previous studies, it was observed that the specimen with PET strips did not break completely due to the presence of PET strips and after the first vertical crack in the PET strips. In the middle, oblique cracks are released. This is due to the incomplete bond between the PET strips and the concrete surrounding these specimens. However as shown in Figure (31), two large vertical cracks associated with some small cracks propagate in the middle opening of the beam and a ductile behavior is observed. This is due to the perfect bond between the PET ropes and the concrete surrounding these specimens, which is confirmed in Fig. As shown in the results, there is a good agreement between the experimental and analytical results and the maximum difference is about 10%.

[0032] Definition of new models:

[0033] The new analytical models are presented in Table (4). In 6P and 9P models, steel rebars are replaced by 6 ropes (in 2 layers) and 9 PET ropes (in 3 layers), respectively. Moreover, since the replacement of steel silencers with PET rope (PS sample) led to brittle shear failure in the test sample (PS), two new analytical models with different arrangements of PET stirrups were introduced and studied. The capacity curves of 6P and 9P models are presented in Figure (32) and compared with the experimental and analytical 3P specimen too.

[0034] 6P model:

[0035] In the 6P model, the first cracking was observed at the load of 8.0428 kN and mid-span deflection of 4.9904 mm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 14.477 kN and deflection of 4.649 mm. Finally, the beam carried a maximum load of 22.651 kN and the ultimate deflection was about 140 mm.

[0036] 9P model:

[0037] In 9P model, the first cracking was observed at the load of 10.8579 kN and mid-span deflection of 5.9553 mm. Then the yielding of steel bars occurred at the load of 15.281 kN and deflection of 4.665 mm. Finally, the beam carried a maximum load of 23.565 kN and the ultimate deflection was about 140 mm. Also, the specimen cracking patterns of these two models are shown in Figure (33) a. 6P and b. 9P model is presented. As shown in these figures, the capacity curves of the 6P and 9P models show similar trend to the 3P curve, and the crack patterns are close to each other. The ultimate load of the 6P model is also about 4% less than the 9P model. When the PET ropes are placed in 2 and 3 layers, their tensile force is closed to the neutral axis of the reinforced concrete section, and the influence of the upper layers of PET ropes on the bending capacity of the beam is decreased. However according to Figure (32) and Figure (33), the tensile crack area in the 9P model is bigger than 6P. Therefore, using more PET ropes leads to more energy absorption. In models TRANS PET-1S (every other steel stirrup was replaced by fiber stirrups) and TRANSE PET-2S (every third steel stirrup was replaced by fiber stirrups), all the specifications applied during the modeling process It is the same as the 3S model. The capacity curves of these two models and their cracking patterns are presented in Figure (34) and Figure (35) and compared with PS and 3S samples.

[0038] TRANS PET-1S model:

[0039] The first cracking of the TRANS PET-1S model was observed at a load of 17.4913 kN and mid-span deflection of 2.6303 mm. Then the failure of the steel rebars occurred at a load of 178.703 kN and a displacement of 44.708 mm. Finally, the beam sustained a maximum load of 185.284 kN and the final deflection was about 128.1089 mm.

[0040] TRANS PET-2S model:

[0041] The first cracking of the TRANS PET-2S model was observed at a load of 17.4911 Kn and 2.6297 mm mid-span deflection. Then the steel rebars yielded a load of 178.240 kN and a deflection of 43.459 mm. Finally, the beam sustained a maximum load of 183.196 kN and the ultimate deflection was about 126.4111 mm. The use of PET ropes as lateral reinforcement in the PS specimen did not show proper ductility and ductility behavior. Due to the low tensile strength and lack of compressive strength of this material, the replacement of steel ropes with PET rope was not successful and should be combined with steel ropes. The summary of these analytical studies is presented in Table (5). As can be seen, the use of PET ropes in combination with steel anchors (TRANS PET-1S and TRANS PET-2S) leads to higher final loads and deflections compared to the PS model. As can be seen in the figure, the vertical flexural crack is associated with the oblique shear crack and the flexural failure mode is dominant.

[0042] Theoretical investigation:

[0043] As it shown in Table (3), using 1 PET rope in the 3P specimen concludes to about 0.73 ton in load capacity of the beam ( . Moreover, using 1 steel bar in the 3S and 2S specimens concludes to an average about 6.3 ton in load capacity of the beam ( . Based on these data, the load capacity of 2S1P ( ), 3P and 1S2P ( ) is about 13.33, 2.19 and 7.76 ton respectively. Corresponding experimental values are about 13.148, 2.204 and 8.542 ton respectively. As it observed, there is an appropriate agreement between these findings and the maximum difference is about 10%.

[0044] Comparison of theoretical, experimental and numerical results in concrete beams:

[0045] Strain and stress distributions along the height of a flexural rectangular RC section are presented in Fig. (36). It is assumed that the strain distribution along the height of the section is linear and there is no sliding between longitudinal reinforcement and surrounded concrete. As shown in this figure, the depth of the equivalent compressive stress block (a=β1c) and flexural capacity of an RC section ( ) can be calculated by Eq. (1). Where, ƒydenotes tensile strength of steel reinforcements, ƒ’c denotes compressive strength of concrete, h denotes height of the member, b denotes width of the member, denotes area of tensile steel reinforcements, and d denotes effective height of the member, denotes area of tensile pet ropes, denotes tensile strength of pet ropes. The flexural capacity of RC beams ( ) is calculated using Eq. (1) and compared with available experimental values in Table (6). Cracking moment and cracking load ( ) of these beams are calculated about 9.89 ton.m and =2.8 ton respectively. As it shown, the maximum difference between the experimental and analytical cracking loads is about 25%. Using these PET ropes as a tensile reinforcement has an important effect on ductility of the beams. As it shown, the experimental load capacity of the 3P specimen is close to that of analytical cracking load of it. By using these PET ropes, no brittle failure occurs and high tensile ductility of the ropes concludes to more ductility ratio of the specimen compared to that of normal reinforced concrete beams. As it shown in this table, the cracking load of the beam is about 2.8 ton and is very close to ultimate load of 6P and 9P models and the maximum difference is about 18%. In this analytical investigation, Compression reinforcement is ignored. This difference may be due to post yielding behavior tensile reinforcement and PET ropes, ignoring the compressive steel bars and tensile part of the concrete which are ignored in the theoretical formulation of these beams. In the case of PS specimen, the shear failure occurs and the analytical values are not calculated. In the case of 3P specimen, analytical cracking load and the experimental flexural capacity of the specimen are close to each other and the difference is about 27%. In the other hand these PET ropes increase the ductility of the beams and has little influence on load bearing of the specimens.

[0046] Cost-benefit and cost-stylizationanalysis:

[0047] First, we will give a brief explanation of how to produce steel and polymer-plastic rebar.

[0048] 1. After melting the steel, ingots of molten steel are formed, and after cooling, they are rolled by pressure and accompanied by heat; As a result of these factors, their length increases and their thickness decreases and steel rebar is produced.

[0049] 2. After cutting the PET bottles, from the tape fibers produced, the strings combined from them are woven together and finally plastic rebar is produced.

[0050] Cost-benefit analysis is a systematic method for estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives that meet the transactions, activities, or functional requirements of a business. Cost-benefit analysis is related to cost-effectiveness analysis, where benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms and adjusted for the time value of money. All flows of benefits and costs are time-adjusted to the same value and expressed on a common basis. Other related techniques include cost-benefit analysis, risk-benefit analysis, economic impact analysis, financial impact analysis, and social return on investment (SROI) analysis. CBA or Cost-Benefit Analysis is a quick and simple method that you can use for non-sensitive financial decisions. When you're making mission-critical decisions or when there's a lot of money at stake, other approaches, such as using net present value and the internal rate of return, are often more appropriate. Now we will calculate the price and weight and compare them:

[0051] Cost-stylization(weight loss) analysis:

[0052] *: A polymer-plastic rebar sample with a diameter of 16 mm and a length of 39 cm weighs about 49 grams.

[0053] A polymer-plastic rebar with a length of 39 cm weighs about 49 grams (so a 12-meter rebar weighs about 1.508 Kg), and each 1 meter weighs about 126 grams.

[0054] *: A branch of steel rebar 16 with a length of 12 meters weighs about 20 kg.

[0055] A 12-meter steel rebar weighs about 20 kg (a 39 cm rebar weighs about 650 grams), and each 1 meter weighs about 1667 grams. The comparison of weights is presented in Table (7). As it is clear from the explanations and results of the table, one meter of steel rebar is about 14 times and 93% heavier than one meter of polymer-plastic rebar.

[0056] Cost-benefit analysis:

[0057] *: The weight of each Pet Family bottle is about 42 grams.

[0058] The cost of buying each kg of PET is 77.000 Iranian Rials. There are about 24 bottles in 1 kg of pet weight. Also, a PET family bottle gives about 21 meters of ribbon fibers after cutting to a width of 1.7 mm. Each PET rope with a diameter of 16 mm consists of 3 main strands and each main strand consists of 40 ribbon fibers, which finally produces a rope of 120 ribbon-shaped fibers. 21 meters of ribbon fibers after weaving gives about 20 meters of rope, so it takes about 120 bottles to produce 20 meters of rope. Each kg of PET has 24 bottles. To produce a 20-meter rope, it is necessary to buy 120 bottles, the weight of which is about 5 kg. The cost of buying 5 kg of pet per kilo is 77.000 Iranian Rials, 385.000 Iranian Rials. The price of raw materials (in the production of one product unit) is 385.000 Iranian Rials for every 20 meters of rope.

[0059] *: A branch of rebar 16 with a length of 12 meters and a weight of 20 kg, the cost of buying each kg is 243.500 Iranian Rials, finally the final price of a 12 meter branch is 243.500 x 20 = 4.870.000 Iranian Rials. The cost comparison of PET and steel rebar is presented in Table (8). As it is clear from the explanations and results of the table, the production cost of a 12-meter plastic rebar with a weight of 1512 gr is 231.000 Iranian Rials. Based on this, its purchase cost is 231.000 Rials, compared to steel rebar with a price of 4.870.000 Iranian Rials, a 12-meter branch weighing 20 kg of steel rebar is about 22 times and 96% of a 12-meter branch weighing 1.5 kg pet rope is more expensive. By comparing the results of the above two analyses, it is found that steel rebar is 22 times more expensive and 14 times heavier than Polymer-plastic rebar.

[0060] Pull out test:

[0061] One of the features of this method is that the calibration curve of its compressive strength is not sensitive to the properties of the concrete mixture, such as the type, size of cement and aggregate, and mixing ratios. Therefore, it can be useful when evaluating concrete strength when its composition is unknown. In general, two methods for testing are common. One is the method of displacement control (strain control) and the other is the method based on load control (stress control). The loading control method is used to apply cyclic loads or to apply a constant load throughout the entire length of the test to measure creep characteristics. The displacement control method is a method in which the test is performed with a constant displacement speed. ASTM C158 and JSCE regulations consider the average of at least three tests.

[0062] Test conditions for the elongation of the samples:

[0063] The experimental investigation of adhesion strength between concrete and PET rope (plymer-plastic rebar) is done using the pull-out test. The experimental evaluation of the adhesion strength according to the interaction between the surfaces of the PET rope and the concrete with the external elongation test of 6 cubic samples of 15x15 cm and 4 cubic samples of 10x10 cm with the mixing plan presented in Table 6 has been done in the experimental. To obtain the compressive strength of concrete, 6 cubic samples of 15 x 15 cm and 4 cubic samples of 10 x 10 cm were made as control samples and after 28 days of storage, they were broken by a compression jack. The 28-day compressive strength of concrete was measured for each sample and their average is the compressive strength criterion, which is equal to 25 MPa. This test is based on the RILEM-RC6 standard.

[0064] The results of the pull-out test:

[0065] After processing, the samples were subjected to uniform and one-way loading by the rebar direct tension device, and the steel and PET rebars were pulled out from inside the concrete. Figures (37,38) show the concreting and processing of the samples and also figures (39,40) show the structure of the device and the details of the test. Figures (41,42) show the force-displacement diagram of the test samples. Finally, Figure (43) shows the image of the rope breaking from the outer edge, and Figure (44) shows the image of concrete breaking with rebar 16. As seen in Figure (43), the PET rope is torn from the outer edge of the concrete, which indicates the complete adhesion of the PET rope with the concrete. It should be noted that in Figures (41,42), because the force was tensile, for this reason, the amount of force is shown with a negative sign in the diagram. In addition, in the PET rope sample, the starting force was 0.282 tons and the displacement was 14.87 cm. The maximum force in the load was 0.978 tons and the amount of displacement was 13.39 cm, and finally, the final force was equal to 0.197 tons and the displacement was 9.61 cm. The amount of displacement recorded by the displacer was equal to 5.26 cm. In this sample, the PET rope had a deviation angle of 0 degrees when it was taken out, and it was also observed in the force-displacement diagram of this sample that after the initial decrease, the force increased again. The initial decrease is related to the stretching of the rope tissue and the reduction of the cross-sectional area, and the subsequent increase is due to the tightening of the fine threads in each other the entanglement of the fibers, and the tightening of the rope. Obviously, with the increase of placement length, the amount of adhesion of the sample to concrete increases. These values ​​for the steel rebar sample were as follows: force start at 0.025 tons and displacement at 9.52 cm. The amount of maximum force in the load was 6.29 tons and the amount of displacement was 8.67 cm, and finally, the final force was equal to 0.024 tons and the displacement was 8.30 cm. The amount of displacement recorded by the displacer was equal to 1.214 cm. In steel rebars, after the force reaches a certain limit, its reduction begins. Force changes are relatively uniform. The review of the rebar after the test indicates that it is scratched in the form of a groove, and finally, the concrete is broken in half and divided into two parts. It can also be seen that the amount of displacement due to the applied load is such that with the increase of the load, the displacement also increases until the concrete sample fails. The adhesion force of this sample consists of the force related to concrete failure and tread resistance against tearing. If the tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of the concrete before the concrete between the two adjacent treads is sheared, radial cracks will be created in the concrete around the rebar and eventually cause the concrete coating around the rebar to crumble and rupture and split the concrete. At this stage of the joint behavior of concrete and ribbed rebar, the effect of friction on the final joint force capacity is negligible, which ultimately results in brittle and sudden failure. This type of continuity failure is called fission. The amount of maximum force in the PET rope is about 146% less than that of the steel bar, but the amount of displacement in the PET sample is about 125% more than the steel sample. It should be noted that the rebars at a distance of 5d from the length of the rebar and cubic samples have adhesion and are buried. So, for steel rebar as well as PET rope with a diameter of 16 mm and a length of 30 cm, the buried adhesion is about 8 cm. Using this test, the maximum amount of force between steel bars and PET rope and concrete was obtained from each pull-out test. Also, by generalizing from Eq. (2), it is possible to obtain the average adhesion stress of PET and concrete rebars for each sample. Where is the adhesive stress in N / mm2, P is the tensile force in N, d is the rebar diameter in mm, and ƒ'c is the compressive strength in MPa. Table (9) shows the results obtained from pull-out tests. In this experiment, the adhesion strength was evaluated according to the interaction between the surface of the steel rebar and the PET rope. During the tensile test, the adhesion strength between concrete, steel rebar, and PET rope, it was concluded that PET fibers have more flexibility and lower yield stress than steel rebars. Also, by comparing the adhesion stress obtained from Table (9) with the results of designs made with steel rebar and PET rope, it is concluded that the stresses in the PET sample were reduced.

[0066] The difference between this invention compared to the records in question is that none of them have produced and used a single rope-shaped polymer rebar woven with recycled plastic fibers. This is the innovation of the work compared to the previous records, and also the technical superiority of this invention compared to the previous records is that it is the production of a new product in the field of construction that can replace steel bars and reinforcements in the structure. The advantages of this invention are as follows:

[0067] 1. By replacing the steel reinforcement with PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) in the concrete beams, the fibers act as additional steel reinforcements, and the high ductility of this beam is obtained due to the presence of these fibers and their bridging mechanism, which prevents the crushing of the concrete (compressive) beam. This mechanism played the most important role in the behavior of the concrete beam and this improving effect leads to greater ductility (as concentrate reinforcement instead of steel). It also improves the behavior after cracking of the concrete, bending capacity, and more energy absorption and easy transportation due to lightweight.

[0068] 2. The use of PET rope (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) fibers instead of steel bars reduces the weight of the beams and makes them lighter, and the production and use of PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) are much cheaper than steel reinforcements (a steel bar is 22 times more expensive and 14 times heavier than PET ropes), are resistant to corrosion, their production and installation time is short, and the use of PET rope in RC beams causes recycling and cleanliness of the environment.

[0069] 3. Due to the stringiness of rope fibers, there is a great connection between concrete and fibers. Finally, a comparison between a reference beam with three tensile reinforcements (3S) and a beam made with two tensile reinforcements (2S). If polymer-plastic rebar is used instead of steel reinforcement, in addition to better flexibility and more ductility and light structure, the bending strength of the concrete beam will be increased compared to the case of two steel reinforcements.

[0070] 4. The use of PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) instead of tensile steel reinforcements leads to a decrease in the final load and an increase in the ductility ratio of the specimen. Due to the low strength and high ductility of PET ropes, the final load and deflection of the sample with three steel bars (3S) is about 8.54 and 0.83 times that of the sample with three PET bars (3P), respectively.

[0071] 5. Due to the uneven texture and ribbed surface of woven PET ropes, a perfect bond is created between concrete and PET ropes, and no slippage is observed between PET ropes and the surrounding concrete. Therefore, the experimental, numerical, and theoretical results are consistent with each other.

[0072] 6. It is not recommended to use PET ropes instead of steel stirrups (PS) and shear failure with large oblique cracks was observed in the test specimen. Shear behavior and low ductility occur, that is, the ultimate displacement is about 0.2 times that of the 3S specimen.

[0073] 7. Using PET ropes in combination with steel stirrups including one in between steel stirrups were replaced by PET ropes (TRANS PET-1S) and one in two steel stirrups were replaced by PET ropes (TRANS PET-2S) concludes to more ultimate loads and deflections compared to those of PS specimen (about 1.37 and 5.09 times respectively) and the vertical flexural cracking is associated with inclined shear cracking while the flexural failure mode is dominant.

[0074] 8. By replacing PET ropes (Polymer-Plastic Rebar) instead of one, two, and three tensile reinforcements in reinforced concrete beams, the ductility ratios of the beams are calculated at about 1.33,1.73, and 4.12 times the reference beam with three tensile steel rebars.

[0075] Brief Description of Drawings & Description of Embodiments

[0076] . Machine No. 1 made for cutting bottles and producing ribbon-shaped fibers

[0077] . Spool for collecting ribbon-shaped fibers

[0078] . Machine No. 2 made for weaving strings

[0079] Figure 4. Device No. 3 is made to combine fiber strands

[0080] Figure 5. The rake, puller, clamp and fixed base column

[0081] Figure 6. Woven rope-shaped fiber rebars

[0082] Figure 7. Details of reinforced concrete beam specimens

[0083] Figure 8. Tensile and tensile strength testing device of woven rope-shaped fiber rebars (Izogam- bituminous waterproofing tensile machine)

[0084] Figure 9. Tensile and tensile strength testing device for woven rope-shaped fiber rebars (screws tensile machine)

[0085] Figure 10. The device for testing tensile and tensile strength of woven rope-shaped fiber rebars (rebar tensile machine)

[0086] Figure 11. Tensile strength test results with tensile testing machine

[0087] Figure 12. 3S specimen in the final stage

[0088] Figure 13. 3S specimen capacity curve

[0089] Figure 14. 2S specimen in the final stage

[0090] Figure 15. 2S specimen capacity curve

[0091] Figure 16. 2S1P specimen in the final stage

[0092] Figure 17. 2S1P specimen Capacity curve

[0093] Figure 18. 3P specimen in the final stage

[0094] Figure 19. 3P specimen capacity curve

[0095] Figure 20. 1S2P specimen in the final stage

[0096] Figure 21. 1S2P specimen capacity curve

[0097] Figure 22. PS specimen in the final stage

[0098] Figure 23. PS specimen capacity curve

[0099] . Destruction pattern of all test samples

[0100] Figure 25. Capacity curves of all test samples

[0101] Figure 26. Bonding concrete and concrete (band formation)

[0102] Figure 27. Bonding between longitudinal rebar and concrete (band formation)

[0103] Figure 28. Validation of 3S model in Abaqus software

[0104] Figure 29. Cracking pattern of experimental sample and 3S analytical model

[0105] Figure 30. Validation of 3P model in Abaqus software

[0106] Figure 31. Cracking pattern of experimental specimen and 3P analytical model

[0107] Figure 32. Capacity curve of model 6P and 9P

[0108] Figure 33. Cracking pattern of experimental specimen and analytical model of 6P and 9P

[0109] Figure 34. The capacity curve of TRANS PET-1S and TRANS PET-2S specimens

[0110] Figure 35. The cracking pattern of the experimental specimen and the analytical model of TRANS PET-1S and TRANS PET-2S

[0111] Figure 36. Strain and stress distributions in a flexural rectangular RC section

[0112] Figure 37. Concreting specimens

[0113] Figure 38. Storage and processing conditions of specimens

[0114] Figure 39. Pet test setup

[0115] Figure 40. Rebar test setup

[0116] Figure 41. The sample capacity curve results of the Pull-out test of the 15x15 cubic specimen of rebar 16-diameter

[0117] Figure 42. The sample capacity curve results of the Pull-out test of the 15x15 cubic specimen of Polymer-plastic rebar 16-diameter

[0118] Figure 43. The sample in the final stage results of the Pull-out test of the 15x15 cubic specimen of Polymer-plastic rebar 16-diameter

[0119] Figure 44. The sample in the final stage results of the Pull-out test of the 15x15 cubic specimen of rebar 16-diameterExamples

[0120] These fibers can be used in reinforced concrete beams so that these fibers replace tensile steel reinforcements (bottom). Their method of use is completely similar to the use of rebar and reinforcement. These fibers are used to strengthen the bending of reinforced concrete beams, which are similar to the reinforcements used in the beams, to replace these rope-shaped fibers instead of the bottom (tensile) reinforcements and concrete beam stirrups. These polymer-plastic-fiber-rope-shaped rebars are completely similar to the steel reinforcements used in the beam in terms of diameter and length. To produce these fibers, in the first stage, it is necessary to build a machine to cut plastic bottles, after designing and building this machine by the inventor, the bottles were cut to different widths, and then to combine them, it is necessary to build a second machine. For the production and weaving of fiber rope, each rope consists of three strands, and after weaving these three strands together, a fiber rope is produced. Each of these threads has a different width and number according to the diameter of the replaced rebar. To replace the fiber rope instead of the bottom (tensile) steel armatures with a diameter of 16, the strings must be prepared in this way. The number of 3 fiber rope strands, each of which contains 40 fiber strands with a width of 1.7 mm, in the first stage of weaving, these 40 strands are woven together by the machine, and finally, after the 3 fiber strands are woven, these 3 strands Woven together to produce a fiber rope with a diameter of 16. To make this rope, 3 strands must be made, each strand containing 40 strands with a width of 1.7 mm, and finally, the woven rope contains 120 ribbon-shaped strands. In the first step to producing PET fiber ropes, after washing the recycled plastic bottle glass, the ends of the bottles are cut with a cutter, and then the bottle is placed inside machine number 1 and the bottles are wide different considerations are cut. The working mechanism of this device is that the bottle is placed on the device's holding rod, then the cut edge of the bottle passes through the opening created on the body of the device to the required width, and then the cut part is connected to the reel, then turn on the mechanical engine and the reel, which is connected to the engine by a rod, rotates with the power of the engine, which cuts the bottle and collects the fibers around the reel, and finally, ribbon-shaped fibers are produced. In the second step, the fiber strands obtained in the first step are prepared for weaving the rope. To weave fiber strands and produce fiber rope, it is necessary to design and build a second machine. These strings are placed on device number 2. The functional mechanism of the device is that the fiber is tied on 3 triangular rods of the device, then the other end of the fiber is connected to the rake, which is connected to the clamp by a rubber band, to the fixed base column. Each rod inside the device passes through a pulley and a belt is set to rotate the pulleys, which pulleys are placed inside it in a triangular shape. The head of a rod is connected to a mechanical engine. By turning on the engine and moving it, three rods rotate simultaneously and tighten the connected fibers. In the third step, it is necessary to build a third device to combine fiber strands. Fiber strands are passed through device number 3. The functional mechanism of this device is such that for the weaving and final production of a rope-shaped fiber rebar, device number 3 is placed close to device number 2. After the fibers are slightly tightened in the second stage by device number 2, simultaneously with the rotation of device number 2, the elastic band attached to the fixed base column where the end of the fiber is located is released from the clamp, and at the same time, device number 3 from the side of device number 2, it is moved towards the fixed base column. With the movement of machine number 3, three bundles of fibers are wrapped around each other and woven. After device number 3 reaches the end of the fibers and the fixed base column, the fiber rope is completely woven and then device number 2 is turned off. The two ends of the fiber rope, the first and the end, are secured by plastic fasteners and wire to prevent the fibers from unraveling. According to the intended length to be used, the fiber rope is measured and cut, and both ends are tightened. Finally, rope-shaped fiber rebars are prepared.

[0121] [Math. 1] Eq. (1).

[0122] Fx=0=> α . f’c. a . b – As. fy– Ap. Fyp= 0

[0123] = β1. C

[0124] Mr = α . f’c. a . b . ( d- )

[0125] α = 0.85 – 0.0015 ƒ’c

[0126] β1= 0.97 – 0.0025 ƒ’c

[0127] ƒy = 400 MPa

[0128] = 26.85 MPa

[0129] =

[0130] [Math. 2] Eq. (2).

[0131]

[0132] [Table 1]

[0133] Table 1. Test result of PET stripsWidth (mm)Fyp(MPa)εL (cm)317.090.0033302.519.200.003130225.580.0031301.726.850.0035301.524.440.0035301.323.580.003430

[0134] [Table 2]

[0135] Table 2. Description of experimental specimensNameDescription3SReference beam with three tensile steel bars2SBeam with two tensile steel bars2S1PBeam with two steel bars and one PET rope in bottom1S2PBeam with two PET ropes and one steel bar in bottom3PBeam with three PET ropes in bottomPSBeam with PET stirrup

[0136] [Table 3]

[0137] Table 3. Ductility ratio of the whole experimental specimen.Name (ton)Depth of crushing (mm)Depth of vertical cracking (mm)∆y (cm)∆u (cm)µ( 3S18.821752206.0112.382.0512S12.682802304.37122.741.332S1P13.148752203.4912.403.551.733P2.204352501.7614.908.464.121S2P8.542702303.7813.63.61.76PS13.36-2251.542.501.620.79µ= denotes ductility ratio - ∆u = denotes ultimate deformation - ∆y = denotes yield deformation - µ=∆u / ∆y

[0138] [Table 4]

[0139] Table 4. New analytical models6P9PTRANS PET-1STRANS PET-2Sin two rows above each other at a distance of 2 cmEffective height 260 mmin three rows above each other at a distance of 2 cmEffective height 240 mmEvery other steel stirrups was replaced by fiber stirrupsEvery third steel stirrups was replaced by fiber stirrups

[0140] [Table 5]

[0141] Table 5. Experimental and Analytical models resultsName of modelUltimate load ( N )Ultimate deflection (mm)Energy ( N.mm )6p22651.0214023007009p23565.681402471600TRANS PET-1S185284128.108919381000TRANS PET-1S183196126.411118760000

[0142] [Table 6]

[0143] Table 6. Experimental and theoretical results for RC beamsBeam (ton) (ton) (ton) / 3S17.5818.9318.820.9342S12.1-12.6820.9542S1P12.639-13.1480.9611S2P7.476-8.5420.875PS--13.36-3P1.6172.1072.2040.7346P2.3752.265--9P3.2612.356--

[0144] [Table 7]

[0145] Table 7. Comparing the weight of PET and steellength (M)weight (gr)Name1126Polymer-plastic rebars11667Steel rebars

[0146] [Table 8]

[0147] Table 8. Cost comparison of PET and steel rebarweight (gr)length (M)Price (Iranian Rial)Name252020385.000Polymer-plastic rebars20000124.870.000Steel rebars

[0148] [Table 9]

[0149] Table 9. Adhesive stress resultsƒ'c( MPa ) Pmax (N)Sample diameter (mm)Name250.02186.7616Steel rebars250.0029.7816Polymer-plastic rebars

[0150] 1. These fibers are used instead of tensile steel reinforcements (bottom) in reinforced concrete beams.

[0151] 2. They are used in residential buildings and offices as well as in commercial and industrial buildings.

[0152] 3. In order to increase the bearing capacity and ductility of columns, beams and slabs and reinforced concrete joints are used.

[0153] 4. These fibers play a significant role in strengthening reinforced concrete walls.

[0154] 5. They are used in all kinds of structural elements.

[0155] 6. Among other cases, these fiber rebars are used in bridges, sidewalks, traffic systems.

[0156] 7. They are also used to strengthen the walls of tunnels and water and sea structures such as dams and canals.

[0157] 8. They are used to repair engineering infrastructure such as road and rail bridges, water and chemical tanks, silos and cooling towers.

[0158] [1] Romualdi, J.P., and Batson, G.B. (1963), “ Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams with loosely Spaced Reinforcement, ” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Proceedings Vol. 60, No. 6, pp 775-789.

[0159] [2] Hakimi, H., and Haqparast, S. A. (2009), "Investigating the effect of PET recycled fibers in controlling concrete plastic cracks," Report, Building Research and Housing Center, Qazvin Azad University, Iran.

[0160] [3] Foti D. Use of recycled waste pet bottles fibers for the reinforcement of concrete. Composite Structures 2013;96:396-404.

[0161] [4] Foti D. Preliminary analysis of concrete reinforced with waste bottles PET fibers. Construction and Building Materials 2011;25:1906-1915.

[0162] [5] Borg RP. Baldacchino O. Ferrara L. Early age performance and mechanical characteristics of recycled PET fibre reinforced concrete. Construction and Building Materials 2016;108:29-47.

[0163] [6] Foti D. Recycled waste PET for sustainable fiber-reinforced concrete. Use of Recycled Plastics in Eco-efficient Concrete 2019.

[0164] [7] Dawood AO. Adnan HM. Experimental investigation of using PET wastes as tension bars in reinforced concrete beams. Journal of University of Babylon for Engineering Sciences 2019;27.

[0165] [8] Falih RS. Dawood AO. AL-Khazraji H. Structural behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles wastes bars. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2020.

[0166] [9] Choi D. Hong S. Lim MK. Ha SS. Vachirapanyakun S. Seismic retrofitting of RC circular columns using carbon fiber, glass fiber, or ductile PET Fiber. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 2021.

[0167]

[0010] Silva DA. Betioli AM. Gleize PJP. Roman HR. Gomez LA. Ribeiro JLD. Degradation of recycled PET fibers in Portland cement-based materials. Cement and Concrete Research 2005;35:1741–1746.

[0168]

[0011] Luiz A. Pereira de Oliveira João P. Castro-Gomes. Physical and mechanical behaviour of recycled PET fibre reinforced mortar. Construction and Building Materials 2011;25:1712–1717.

[0169]

[0012] Ochi T. Okubo S. Fukui K. Development of recycled PET fiber and its application as concrete-reinforcing fiber. Cement & Concrete Composites 2007;29:448–455.

[0170]

[0013] Montedo KRO. Pelisser F. Jean Paul Gleize P. Roman HR. Mechanical properties of recycled PET fibers in concrete. Materials Research 2012;15:679-686.

[0171]

[0014] Khalid FS. Irwan JM, Wan Ibrahim MH. Othman N. Shahidan S. Performance of plastic wastes in fiber-reinforced concrete beams. Construction and Building Materials 2018;183:451–464.

[0172]

[0015] Abdullah WA. Ahmed HU. Alshkane Y.M. Rahman DB. Ali AO. Abubakr SS. The Possibility of using waste PET plastic strip to enhance the flexural capacity of concrete beams. Journal of Engineering Research 2021.

[0173]

[0016] Qaidi S. Al-Kamaki YSS, Al-Mahaidi R, Mohammed AS, Ahmed HU, Zaid O. Investigation of the effectiveness of CFRP strengthening of concrete made with recycled waste PET fine plastic aggregate. PLOS ONE 2022:17.

[0174]

[0017] Ali B. Fahad M. Mohammed AS. Ahmed H. Elhag AB. Azab M. Improving the performance of recycled aggregate concrete using nylon waste fibers. Case Studies in Construction Materials 2022:17.

[0175]

[0018] Piro NS. Mohammed A. Hamad SM. Kurda R. Electrical resistivity-Compressive strength predictions for normal strength concrete with waste steel slag as a coarse aggregate replacement using various analytical models. Construction and Building Materials 2022:327.

[0176]

[0019] Ahmed HU. Mohammed AS. Mohammed AA. Engineering properties of geopolymer concrete composites incorporated recycled plastic aggregates modified with nano-silica. Journal of Building Engineering 2023:75.

[0177]

[0020] Ahmed HU. Mohammed AS. Mohammed AA. Fresh and mechanical performances of recycled plastic aggregate geopolymer concrete modified with Nano-silica: Experimental and computational investigation. Construction and Building Materials 2023:394.

[0178]

[0021] Jayasinghe T. Chen BW. Zhang Z. Meng X. Li Y. Gunawardena T. Mangalathu S. Mendis P. Data-driven shear strength predictions of recycled aggregate concrete beams with / without shear reinforcement by applying machine learning approaches. Construction and Building Materials 2023:387.

[0179]

[0022] Jayasinghe T. Gunawardena T. Mendis P. Assessment of shear strength of reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement: A comparative study between codes of practice and artificial neural network. Case Studies in Construction Materials 2022:16.

[0180]

[0023] Santamaría A. Llona AG. Cuesta VR. Piñero I. López VO. Bending tests on building beams containing electric arc furnace slag and alternative binders and manufactured with energy-saving placement techniques. Structures 2021:22:1921-1933.

[0181]

[0024] Santamaría A. Romera JM. Marcos I. Cuesta VR. López VO. Shear strength assessment of reinforced concrete components containing EAF steel slag aggregates. Journal of Building Engineering 2022:46.

[0182]

[0025] Shibayama A. Nishiyama M. Shear strength of reinforced fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement. Structures 2023:50:603-614.

[0183]

[0026] Li H. Liebscher M. Yang J. Davoodabadi M. Li L. Du Y. Yang B. Hempel S. MechtcherineV. Electrochemical oxidation of recycled carbon fibers for an improved interaction toward alkali-activated composites. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022:368.

[0184]

[0027] Li H. Schamel E. Liebscher M. Zhang Y. Fan Q. Schlachter H. Köberle T. Mechtcherine V. Wehnert G. Söthje D. Recycled carbon fibers in cement-based composites: Influence of epoxide matrix depolymerization degree on interfacial interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production 2023:411.

[0185]

[0028] Ramin Tolou Jouyandeh. Ali Hemmati. Alireza Mortezaei. Using woven recycled plastic fibers in reinforced concrete beams. Construction and Building Materials 2023, 133262.

Claims

The invention involves producing a particular product and creating three production machines. This invention includes making woven rope-shaped fiber rebars from PET (polyethylene terephthalate) - recycled plastic bottles like soda bottles. These rebars are meant to replace Tensile steel bars in reinforced concrete beams and are used to further increase the structure's ductility. Three machines are required to produce fiber rebars. The first machine (No. 1) is designed to cut plastic bottles into ribbon-shaped fibers of different widths. It consists of several openings of various sizes to cut the bottles and convert them into fibers. The machine has a cutting blade installed under the opening and the inner edge of the device. It also includes a holding bar between the cutting openings and a metal structure to hold the bottle in place. The cutting can be done manually using hand muscles or with the mechanical energy of a motor. The components of this device include:- The cutting machine features a metal body and structure where various components are installed.- It includes several openings on the metal body to allow fibers to pass through and be cut to the desired width.- The machine is equipped with a blade specifically designed for cutting fibers.- Additionally, it has a holding rod for placing the bottle, directing, and rotating it to facilitate the cutting process.- There is also a chamber for passing the fibers and connecting them to the motor to start cutting.Similar to claim 1, for cutting fibers and cutting the bottle, after the bottle cuts by the blade cuts and passes through the transverse orifice, for cutting the whole bottle and obtaining a plastic strip, the free end of the strip is attached to a reel, which contains a rod inside, and the free end of the rod is located inside a mechanical motor and by turning it on and rotating it, the reel spins and the bottle is cut, and the fiber strip wraps around the reel to be ready for the next stage.According to claim No. 2, the fiber strip production mechanism is designed so that the rotary movement of the spool, which is made by the mechanical motor, is facilitated.To produce rope-shaped fiber rebars, a second machine must be built after preparing strip-shaped strands with machine No.

1. Machine No. 2 is responsible for weaving fibers together to make a fiber rope, which consists of the following:A rectangular wooden cube box with three triangle-shaped holes on two of its sides has three metal rods passing through the holes. Inside the box are three pulleys which the rods are passed through and the direction The rotation of the pulley and the rods, a belt in the shape of a triangle is placed around the pulleys. One end of one of the rods is connected to a mechanical engine, causing the motor to rotate the rods and the belt. This rotation causes the tapes to rotate and combine, which is composed of the following components:- The weaving machine's wooden body and structure support its various components.- Three rods run through the device's front and back wooden parts to rotate and combine ribbon-shaped fibers.- There are three pulleys to rotate these rods, and the rods pass through the pulleys.- A belt is used to rotate the three pulleys and rods.- A mechanical engine is present to rotate the rods.As per Claim No. 2, the ribbon-shaped fibers produced from the device in Claim No. 1 are designed based on the final diameter (for instance, to substitute a fiber rope for a steel rebar, the diameters of the rope and the steel rebar must be similar). To replace a 16-diameter rope-shaped fiber rebar with a 16-diameter steel rebar, 40 ribbon-shaped fibers are tied to the first bar, 40 fibers to the second bar, and 40 fibers to the third bar, totaling 120 strands. This quantity of fiber is required to create a fiber rope with a 16 diameter.As per claim No. 5, the length of the fiber rope is determined by the final required size of the rope. For example, if a one-meter rope is needed, the ribbon-shaped fibers should be 3 meters long. One end of the fibers is connected to a fixed elastic and clamp so that after weaving the 3-meter fibers, a 1-meter rope is obtained.A third machine is needed to weave the ribbon-shaped fibers in Claim No. 4 and produce the final rope-shaped fiber rebar. Device No. 3, made of metal, has a metal handle and three circular holes connected in a triangle shape. This device is placed and secured on a metal base.According to Claim No. 4 and 7, after closing the fiber strips on device No. 2 and passing the ribbon-shaped fibers from inside Device No. 3, Device No. 3 is placed close to Device No. 2 in Claim No. 4 and It is kept fixed, then the mechanical engine is turned on and it twists the ribbon-shaped strands a little, so that it becomes a little stiff (the other end of the fibers must be fixed at this stage and not rotate, which is attached to the fixed column and inside the elastic and the rake is connected), after the fibers are tightened, the head is fixed, released and the elastic is released into the rake, and at the same time the mechanical engine starts to rotate, and after that, device number 3 in claim number 7 by human hand and arm power or the mechanical force by the robot moves forward and goes to the end of the fibers so that the fibers are woven together, take the shape of a rope, and finally a rope-shaped fiber rebar is produced, the following steps are taken to produce it:- The ribbon-shaped fibers obtained by cutting by machine No. 1 of the cutting machine in claim No. 2 are placed on machine No. 2 of the weaving machine in claim No. 4, in such a way that one end of the fiber is tied to machine No. 2 and the other end The fiber is connected to an elastic and a rake, which is inside the rake, and the rake itself is connected to the base of the fixed column using a rope or any fixing device.- After installing the fibers on device number 2, the mechanical engine is turned on.- Device No. 3 in claim No. 7, which is a metal combining device, is fixed from the side of device No. 2, which is a knitting device, in the initial part of the fibers, and the mechanical motor rotates the ribbon-shaped fibers around each other until a little be tightened, then at the same time, device number 3 goes to the end of the ribbon-shaped fibers that are connected to the rakes (towards the elastic band, rake and fixed base column), the rake head is released from inside the column fixer so that the rotating movement can be performed by the elastic band.- The elastic bands, to which the end of the strip-shaped fibers are attached, move against the direction of rotation of the mechanical motor, and by moving the metal device number 3 towards the end of the fibers and the fixed base column, With the reverse movement of the elastic bands, which is opposite to the movement of the motor, rope-shaped plastic polymeric rebars are made.- After the fibers are woven and the rope is made, the required length is measured using a meter. The two ends of the rope are then fastened with plastic clips and wire to prevent the rope and fibers from unraveling. Finally, the rope-shaped plastic polymeric rebar is ready.According to claim No. 8, once the fiber rope with the required diameter and length is made, it is placed into a mold to create a concrete beam. Using the fiber rope in the mold is similar to using steel rebars. After the reinforcement and formwork, the concreting stage is carried out, and finally, the construction of the concrete beam is completed.These bars are much cheaper and lighter than steel bars.

Images