Bond strength of fibre-reinforced polymer bars in engineered cementitious composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high strain capacity while maintaining small crack width makes flowable fibre-reinforced engineered cementitious composites (ECCs) an ideal durable material for construction. ECCs reinforced with glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars is an emerging technology. The full understanding of the bond characteristics of GFRP bars in ECCs is important for this new technology to be adopted in bridge/building constructions. Experimental investigations accompanied by code-based theoretical investigations were conducted to evaluate the bond behaviour of GFRP bars embedded in normal concrete (NC) and ECCs. Ninety pullout specimens were tested. The test variables were GFRP bar types (low modulus (LM) and high modulus (HM)), diameter of the bar (12·7, 15·9 and 19·1 mm) and embedded length (5, 7 and 10 times bar diameter). The bond strengths of both LM and HM bars embedded in the ECC were found to be higher than of those embedded in NC. This confirmed the superior bond characteristics of ECC compared with NC. Bond strength predictions based on CSA S6-06 and CSA S806-12 were found to be conservative while predictions based on ACI 440.1R-06 were found to be unconservative for the majority of specimens. Existing code-based equations need to be modified for the calculation of the bond strength of GFRP bars in ECCs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".