EFFECT OF CONCRETE COVER ON BOND OF GFRP BARS IN ULTRA-HIGH-PERFORMANCE FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE (UHPFRC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at establishing the development length of sand-coated GFRP bars embedded into UHPFRC with a focus on the effect of concrete cover on bond strength. The study uses notched beam specimens tested in flexure where the bars are under realistic tensile stress as opposed to pull-out tests. The embedment length of the bars was varied in different beams to establish a correlation with the maximum tension force attained, thereby calculating the minimum embedment length required to enable the full tensile capacity of the bar, namely the development length. Concrete mixes containing 2% steel fibers were used for all specimens in the study. It was found that ACI440.11-22 code equation grossly overestimates GFRP bar development length in UHPFRC by a factor of 2.6-2.9. The Michaud et al. (2021) equation provided a much better prediction but was unable to account for varying concrete covers. As such, it overestimated development length by a factor of 1.3 for the thickest cover used in this study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".