Experimental Investigation on the Seismic Performance of Beam-Column Joints Reinforced with GFRP Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars were used recently as main reinforcement for concrete structures. The noncorrodible GFRP material exhibits linear-elastic stress-strain characteristics up to failure with relatively low modulus of elasticity compared to steel. This raises concerns on GFRP performance in structures where energy dissipation, through plastic behavior, is required. The objective of this research project is to assess the seismic behavior of concrete beam-column joints reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups. Two full-scale exterior T-shaped beam-column joint prototypes are constructed and tested under simulated seismic load conditions. One prototype is totally reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups, while the other one is reinforced with steel. The experimental results showed that the GFRP reinforced joint can sustain a 4.0% drift ratio and can recover its deformation without any significant residual strains. This indicates the feasibility of using GFRP bars and stirrups as reinforcement in the beam-column joints subjected to seismic-type loading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".