Bond characteristics of glass fibre reinforced polymer bars embedded in high performance and ultra-high performance concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) bars is increasing in construction as an alternative to conventional steel rebars. This thesis investigates the bond behaviour of glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars embedded in high performance concrete (HPC) and ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). In this study, the bond characteristics of sand coated GFRP bars embedded in 70-175 MPa concrete were explored. Beam and pullout tests were performed to determine the effects of the concrete strength, bar diameter, embedment length, and concrete cover on the bond behaviour of GFRP bars. Based on the analysis, the development lengths for the GFRP bars were determined and then compared to requirements provided by design codes. It was concluded that the design code lengths could be reduced by 20% while still maintaining a factor of safety of two over the development lengths determined through this study. This reduction can be applied when the GFRP bar is surrounded by sufficient transverse reinforcement, such that adding additional reinforcement would not affect the bond strength. Reducing the amount of GFRP reinforcing material needed, results in a lower overall cost of construction.
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".