Investigation of pullout strength of pre-installed glass fibre reinforced polymer bars in high-performance concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars are rapidly becoming an alternative to conventional steel reinforcing bars in bridge construction. This research investigated the bond behaviour of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars embedded in high-‐performance concrete (HPC). Sand-‐coated and ribbed-‐surface GFRP bars of 16 and 20 mm diameters were considered in this study. Concrete blocks were cast with embedded GFPR bars to conducted pullout tests to examine the effect of varying parameters on their pullout and bond strengths, namely: embedment length, bar diameter, surface treatment, and concrete cover. In addition, bond characteristic were analyzed between straight and head-‐ended sand-‐coated GFRP bars. The experimental results were used to evaluate the development lengths specified in design codes. It was determined that the development lengths for straight GFRP bars provided by the codes are conservative. Also, the development length for head-‐end bar is shorter than that for similar bar with straight end.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".