Behavior of reinforced concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars is one of the alternatives presented in recent studies to prevent the drawbacks related to the steel reinforcement in specific reinforced concrete members. In this work, six reinforced concrete beams were submitted to four point bending tests. One beam was reinforced with CA-50 steel bars and five with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. The tests were carried out in the Department of Structural Engineering in São Carlos Engineering School, São Paulo University. The objective of the test program was to compare strength, reinforcement deformation, displacement, and some anchorage aspects between the GFRP-reinforced concrete beams and the steel-reinforced concrete beam. The results show that, even though four GFRP-reinforced concrete beams were designed with the same internal tension force as that with steel reinforcement, their capacity was lower than that of the steel-reinforced beam. The results also show that similar flexural capacity can be achieved for the steel- and for the GFRP-reinforced concrete beams by controlling the stiffness (reinforcement modulus of elasticity multiplied by the bar cross-sectional area - EA) and the tension force of the GFRP bars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".