Bond strength improvement of GFRP rebars with different rib geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) criteria, 105 pullout specimens were tested to investigate the effect of different rib geometries on bond strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars embedded in concrete. Two kinds of conventional reinforcing rebars were also studied for comparison. Each rebar was embedded in a 150 mm concrete cube, with the embedded length being four times the rebar diameter. The experimental parameters were the rebar type, rebar component, rebar diameter, rebar surface texture, rib height, rib spacing and rib width. Theoretical analysis was also carried out to explain the experimental phenomena and results. The experimental and theoretical results indicated that the bond strength of GFRP rebars was about 13%∼35% lower than that of steel rebars. The bond strength and bond-slip behavior of the specially machined rebars varied with the rebar type, rebar diameter, rebar surface texture, rib height, rib spacing and rib width. Using the results, design recommendations were made concerning optimum rib geometries of GFRP ribbed rebars with superior bond-slip characteristics, which concluded that the optimal rib spacing of ribbed rebars is the same as the rebar diameter, and that the optimal rib height is 6% of the rebar diameter.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".