Creep-Rupture Limit for GFRP Bars Subjected to Sustained Loads
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An American Concrete Institute (ACI) design guide for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)–reinforced concrete recommends that, in order to avoid creep-rupture failure, service-load sustained stress should not exceed 0.20 times the design tensile strength ffu of glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) reinforcement, where ffu is equal to the guaranteed tensile strength multiplied by an environmental reduction factor. The 0.20 value, which was put in place prior to 2001, was conservatively chosen due to both limited test data and a lack of standards for both materials and test methods. In this study, values for the creep-rupture strength at a 1,000,000-h (114-year) endurance time were extrapolated from recent creep-rupture tests of GFRP bars based on regression analysis of rupture stress versus the logarithm of endurance time in hours. The bars were made of continuous E-CR or E-glass fibers in a vinyl ester resin and manufactured by the pultrusion process. The analyses indicate that, given a 114-year service life and a 1.67 safety factor as is used by the ACI design guide for FRP-reinforced concrete, a sustained stress limit of 0.30ffu is a conservative value to avoid a creep rupture of GFRP reinforcing bars that conform to ASTM standards.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it