Comparative Study of GFRP and Steel Rebar Bonding in Concrete: Experimental Analysis and Crack Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) bars are considered as an alternative to steel reinforcement in certain structures cases due to their non corrosive aspect.Perhaps, they exist with different surface treatment helically wrapped (GFRP-HW) and sand coated (GFRP-S).Thus, each rebar type is performed by a particular bond behavior with the concrete and it affects the concrete crack formations.In the first part of this paper, an experimental and analytical study of the bond behaviour between the (GFRP), rebars and concrete were carried-out.Pull out test tests have been applied on concrete cylindrical slabs in order to identify experimentally the bond behaviour between the self-compacting concrete and GFRP.Various parameters were taken in account in this experimental study: the rebar diameters, the concrete age, and the rebar roughness.Based on the experimental results, the failure mode of the bond specimens, the variation of the bond load, and the bond-slip variation are analyzed.Two failure modes of the GFRP rebars were experimentally identified: the pull-out failure mode and the splitting one.According to the experimental data, it was proven that the GFRP-S rebars and the steel ones exhibit a more bond performant than that of the GFRP-HW rebars.In the second part, an analytical identification of the BPE and the CMR models was established.Subsequently, a tension tie model was extended analytically in order to predict the crack patterns of concrete elements reinforced with the GFRP rebars and steel rebars.The expressions of the cracking parameters issued from the tension tie model have been developed.It can be deduced that the GFRP-HW and GFRP-S reinforced concrete element exhibits a longitudinal strain less than that of the steel reinforcement case.Hence, the GFRP reinforced element undergoes cracks that are characterized by more important width measurements than those of the cracks deduced from the case of the reinforced steel element.Finally, the stress-strain analytical diagram of a GFRP tension member has been plotted and compared to the steel tension element.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".