Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars have been extensively used in construction instead of steel rebars due to their non-corrosive nature and high tensile strength. Bond between FRP rebars and concrete is a critical design parameter that controls the performance of reinforced concrete members at serviceability and ultimate limit states. In order to prevent a bond failure, an adequate anchorage length should be provided. The anchorage length is derived using a bond stress-slip ( ) constitutive law. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of different parameters such as the type of fibre, the rebar surface and the confinement provided by the transverse reinforcement on the bond behaviour of FRP rebars in concrete. Based on the analysis, a generalized bond stress-slip relationship will be developed and a new design equation for the required anchorage length of FRP rebar in concrete will be derived. A database was created on the bond stress-slip behaviour of FRP rebars in concrete from the available literature up to 2009. The data was statistically analyzed to investigate the effect of the different parameters on the bond performance of FRP rebars. It was observed that an increase in the confinement provided by the transverse reinforcement increased the bond strength of FRP rebars in concrete. This signifies that the presence of transverse reinforcement affects the bond behaviour of FRP rebars in concrete and hence, it should be taken into consideration while developing design equations for FRP rebars. Type of fibre and rebar surface does not affect the bond stress, but the latter affects the slip corresponding to the peak bond stress. Based on the results, a nonlinear regression analysis was performed to develop the bond stress-slip model for splitting mode of failure and a design equation for determining the development length of the FRP rebars in concrete was derived. The proposed development length equation can save about 10%-15% of the development length than that required by different code equations. This can save a considerable amount of FRP materials, which will eventually reduce the overall cost of construction and thereby, encourage the use of FRP reinforcing bars in the construction of 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".