Field study of glass-fibre-reinforced polymer durability in concrete
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) does not permit the use of glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) for primary reinforcement or prestressing tendons in concrete components. The restriction on the use of GFRP in concrete was based on published laboratory studies indicating that GFRP is not stable in the alkaline environment of concrete. In 2004, ISIS Canada sponsored an extensive study of the durability of GFRP in concrete by removing cores from GFRP-reinforced concrete components of five 5- to 8-year-old structures from across Canada. Three teams working independently at several Canadian universities used a variety of analytical methods to (i) investigate whether the GFRP in concrete field structures had been attacked by alkalis and (ii) compare the composition of GFRP removed from in-service structures with the composition of control specimens that were saved from the projects and not exposed to the concrete environment. The analytical results have confirmed that the GFRP in concrete did not suffer any damage during the 5–8 years of exposure. As a result of this study, the CHBDC in its forthcoming (second) edition has permitted the use of GFRP for both primary reinforcement and prestressing tendons in concrete components, provided the maximum stress level in GFRP at the serviceability limit state is kept at or below 25% of its ultimate strength. It was also found that, contrary to some claims, concrete over GFRP bars does not crack even if the depth of cover is as thin as 28 mm.Key words: alkali attack, barrier wall, crack, deck slab, depth of cover, fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP), glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it