MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical, Mechanical, and Durability Characterization of Preloaded GFRP Reinforcing Bars

2010· article· en· W2077931987 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Robert, Brahim Benmokrane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityMaterials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialStress (linguistics)Glass fiberMortarFiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the physical, mechanical, and durability characterization of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) (GFRP) bars subjected to different tensile stress levels. FRP bars were first loaded at levels up to 20, 40, 60, and 80% of their ultimate tensile strength (UTS) which could create cracks and microcracks in the FRP bars and affect the long-term durability of the product. Microstructural observations were conducted on preloaded GFRP reinforcing bars to show the deterioration of fiber, matrix, and the fiber/matrix interface. Moisture absorption and tensile properties of loaded bars were also measured to estimate the potential effects of cracks and microcracks on durability-related properties and on short-term mechanical properties, respectively. Loaded bars were also embedded in a moist mortar at elevated temperature to perform accelerated aging. The measured tensile strengths of the loaded bars before and after exposure were considered as a measure of the durability performance of the specimens. Results showed that the GFRP bars start to be slightly affected by the tensile stress at 60% of the UTS. These results showed that the loading of GFRP bars did not have a dramatic effect on the durability of the bars even when a pronounced tensile stress, which was approximately 80% of the UTS, takes place.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207