Numerical simulation of one-way concrete slabs reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer bars under service temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thermal incompatibility between fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars and concrete may cause splitting cracks within the concrete and, eventually, the deterioration of the bond between the FRP bar and the concrete. This paper presents a numerical study using ADINA finite elements software to investigate the thermal behavior of actual one-way concrete slabs reinforced with glass FRP (GFRP) bars varying the ratio of concrete cover thickness to FRP bar diameter (c/db) from 1.3 to 2.8. Slabs are submitted to temperature variations varied from −50 to 60 °C. The main results prove that first radial cracks occur in concrete, at the FRP bar – concrete interface, at thermal loads (ΔTcr) varied between 15 °C and 30 °C. While, the circumferential cracks appear within concrete, at FRP bar – concrete interface, at ΔTcr varied between −15 °C and −35 °C depending of the ratio c/db (1.3 to 2.8) and the tensile strength of concrete fct (1.9 to 2.9 MPa). These numerical thermal loading values are relatively in good agreement with those predicted from the analytical model. The numerical model shows that there is no failure of the concrete cover for low temperatures for slabs having c/db = 1.3 to 2.8 and fct = 1.9 to 2.9 MPa. Nevertheless, for high temperatures, the splitting failure of concrete cover is produced at thermal loads ΔTsp′ varied from 30 °C to 59 °C. While, for concrete situated between GFRP bars, the splitting failure occurred at thermal loads ΔTsp′ equal to 46 °C. Thermal stresses and strains, and also cracking thermal loads predicted from the numerical model are compared with those obtained from analytical models and experimental tests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".