Mechanical and bond properties of new generation of carbon fibre reinforced polymer reinforcing bars for concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents laboratory test results on the mechanical properties and bond strength of new generation of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) reinforcing bars used as nonprestressed reinforcement for concrete structures. Two types of CFRP reinforcing bars, namely, 9-mm-diameter CFRP ribbed bars and 9.5-mm-diameter CFRP sand-coated bars, were investigated. Tensile tests and pullout bond tests were conducted to evaluate the tensile properties and bond strength of the CFRP bars in comparison with that of the steel bar. Experimental results showed that the tensile stress-strain curves of the CFRP bars were linear up to failure. The ultimate tensile strength of the two types of CFRP bars was at least 1500 MPa, three times that of steel bars. The modulus of elasticity of two types of the CFRP bars was 128145 GPa, about 6575% that of steel. Furthermore, both types of the CFRP bars exhibited almost the same bond strength to concrete similar to steel bars. The minimum bond development length for the two types of CFRP bars seemed to be equal to about 20db for the sand-coated bars and 30db for the ribbed bars.Key words: fibre reinforced polymer (FRP), carbon FRP (CFRP), bar, mechanical properties, tensile strength, embedded length, pullout, bond strength, concrete structures.
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 | 0.001 | 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".