Fire Survivability of Externally Bonded FRP Strengthening Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of externally-bonded fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) to strengthen reinforced concrete (RC) structures is now widely recognized. However, a concern that continues to discourage the use of FRPs in many applications is their susceptibility to high temperature and fire. Although recent studies have shown that the fire endurance of appropriately designed and insulated FRP strengthened RC members is satisfactory, the specific performance of FRP systems at, and after exposure to, high temperature remains largely unknown. The results of tests on the residual properties after high-temperature exposure of various available FRP strengthening systems for concrete are reported; these include: tension coupon tests, single-lap FRP-to-FRP bond tests, direct tension FRP-to-concrete bond tests, and pull-apart FRP-to-concrete shear bond tests after exposure to temperatures up to 400°C . The data show that the allowable exposure temperatures for residual performance of externally bonded FRP systems lie between the glass transition temperature (Tg) and the thermal decomposition temperature of the resin systems used. The potential consequences for fire-safe design of FRP strengthened RC members are discussed. Material properties during a fire event are not specifically addressed.
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) | 0.002 | 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".