Fatigue life and behaviour of ribbed GFRP reinforced concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing adoption of glass-fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) as an alternative to steel reinforcement, there is limited research addressing the fatigue performance of GFRP bars in reinforced concrete structures. Existing literature presents contradictory experimental data and conclusions regarding the fatigue behaviour of GFRP rebars embedded in concrete. This study investigates the fatigue life of ribbed GFRP bars embedded in concrete beams through an experimental program, considering factors such as concrete strength and fatigue stress levels. Additionally, it introduces a testing protocol utilizing a displacement-controlled scheme to conduct fatigue testing, addressing many issues associated with force-controlled fatigue testing. Furthermore, the paper discusses cracking behaviour, deflection, and slippage, providing insights into the interaction between GFRP rebars and concrete under fatigue loading. The results of this study demonstrated that ribbed GFRP bars can withstand 2 million cycles of fatigue loading at a 40% stress ratio. The obtained fatigue life exceeds findings in existing literature, emphasizing the impact of stress ratio and bar surface profile on fatigue performance.
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".