Numerical Study of GFRP-reinforced Concrete Beams with Straight and Hooked-end Bar Lap Splices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) has been increasingly used as the main reinforcement in concrete structures due to its durability and resistance to corrosion. However, there is a lack of data regarding the bond behaviour of GFRP bars with 180-degree hooked ends used in flexure concrete elements. To investigate the effects of the hooked ends of GFRP bars on the bond strength with concrete, beams reinforced with GFRP bars with straight and hooked-end lap splices at the midspan were modelled using ABAQUS/Standard software. The finite element models were validated using the experimental results of four full-size concrete beams. Two beam specimens had straight-end bars, while the other two had hooked-end bars. Sensitivity analysis was performed to find the proper values for model verification, such as dilation angle and mesh density. According to the outcomes of the parametric study conducted in this research, changing the length of the bar lap splices in the range of 15 to 40 times the bar diameter had a negligible effect on the beam’s overall behaviour. Increasing the number of reinforcing bars from 3 to 5 increased the beam flexural strength by about 33%, whereas increasing the diameter of the bars from 10 to 20 mm doubled the beam strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".