Finite Element Analysis of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-(GFRP) Reinforced Continuous Concrete Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) is a competitive solution for the durability of reinforced structures. This paper aims to observe the moment redistribution behavior occurring due to flexural and shear loading in Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer- (GFRP) reinforced continuous concrete beams. A rectangular cross-section was adopted in this study with dimensions of 200 mm in width and 300 mm in depth with a constant shear span-to-depth ratio of 3. The reinforcement ratio for the top and bottom were equal at sagging and hogging moment regions. A finite element model was created using Analysis System (ANSYS) and validated with the existing experimental results in the literature review. Based on the literature review, the parametric study was conducted on twelve beam specimens to evaluate the influence of concrete compressive strength, transversal GFRP stirrups ratio, and longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the redistribution of the moment in beams. Several codes and guidelines adopted different analytical models. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) S806 adopted the modified compression field theory in predicting the shear capacity of the simply supported beams. Recently, various researchers encountered several factors and modifications to account for concrete contribution, longitudinal, and transverse reinforcement. A comparison between the predicting shear capacity of the generated finite element model, the analytical model, and the existing data from the literature was performed. The generated finite element model showed a good agreement with the experimental results, while the beam specimens failed in shear after undergoing significant moment redistribution from hogging to sagging moment region. The moment distribution observed about 21.5% from FEM of beam specimen GN-1.2-0.48-d, while the experimental results achieved 24% at failure load. For high strength concrete presented in beam specimen GH-1.2-0.63-d, the result showed about 20.2% moment distribution, compared to that achieved experimentally of 23% at failure load.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".