Recent Developments of FRP Bars as Internal Reinforcement in Concrete Structures & Field Applications
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
In the last decade, there has been a rapid increase in using noncorrosive fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) reinforcing bars for concrete structures due to enhanced properties and cost-effectiveness. The FRP bars have been used extensively in different applications such as bridges, parking garages, water tanks, tunnels and marine structures in which the corrosion of steel reinforcement has typically led to significant deterioration and rehabilitation needs. Significant developments from the manufacturers, researchers and Design Standards along with numerous successful installations provided designers and owners with a high comfort level and led to an exponentially increasing use. After years of investigation and implementation, public agencies and regulatory authorities in North America have now included FRP as a premium corrosion resistant reinforcing material in their corrosion protection policies. Currently, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) contain design provisions for the design of concrete bridge members reinforced with FRP bars. As a result, well over 500 bridges across Canada and USA have been designed and constructed using FRP bars. This paper presents a summary and overview of different recent field applications of FRP bars in different types of civil engineering concrete infrastructures.
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