Bond characteristics of glass-fibre-reinforced polymer bars in high-strength concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibre-reinforced polymer bars are rapidly becoming an approved alternative to conventional reinforcing steel bars, especially for severely exposed structures such as bridges. This paper reports on an experimental study on the bond characteristics of both sand-coated and ribbed-surface glass-fibre-reinforced polymer bars embedded in high-strength concrete (HSC). A total of 145 pull-out tests were conducted to examine the effect of varying parameters on the bond characteristics, namely embedment length, bar diameter, surface treatment and concrete cover. In addition, 45 pull-out tests were conducted to investigate the effect of providing headed-end anchorage for the sand-coated bars. The experimental results showed that the sand-coated bars exhibited better bond strength than the ribbed-surface bars, which entailed lower development lengths. Thus, based on the experimental results, expressions for the development length of both sand-coated and ribbed-surface bars embedded in HSC were developed and compared against the results of formulae in available design standards. The comparison revealed that ACI 440-1R-06 produced lower conservative results than CAN/CSA S806-12.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".