Evaluation of Physical and Durability Characteristics of New Headed Glass Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Bars for Concrete Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a collaborative research project between Quebec’s Ministry of Transportation and Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation, which aimed at characterizing a new type of headed glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bar and evaluating its suitability as internal reinforcement for concrete structures. To achieve these objectives, the project was implemented in three stages: (1) evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties; (2) determination of the pullout behavior in concrete; and (3) characterization of the long-term durability of the headed GFRP bars. A total of 57 specimens embedded in a 200-mm concrete cube were tested with the direct pullout test to investigate the effect of confinement, bar size, concrete compressive strength, and exposure conditions on the pullout behavior of the headed GFRP bars. Simultaneously, microstructural analyses and measurements of the physicochemical and mechanical properties were carried out on conditioned and unconditioned headed GFRP bars. The results show that the materials, geometry, and interface configuration of the head provided very good mechanical interlocking to the GFRP bars. Up to 63 and 53% of the guaranteed tensile strength of the straight GFRP bars were achieved for 15.9- and 19-mm diameter bars with headed ends, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy and differential scanning calorimetry showed no material changes in the head and bars after exposure to alkaline solution and freeze–thaw cycling. Exposure to the alkaline solution under sustained loading had the most detrimental effect, with the bar retaining 79.4% of its pullout strength. The results indicate that the tested headed GFRP bar has suitable mechanical and durability properties for use as reinforcement in concrete bridge components.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".