Looking Into the Anthropocene: Sustainable Design Philosophy, Behaviour of GFRP and Steel in Concrete Beams Subjected to Flexion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corrosion of steel embedded in structural elements of ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPC) induces cracks and fissures, contributing to the reduction of the Useful Life Period of Structures (RULPS).The global OPC industry is the third-largest emitter of Anthropogenic 𝐶𝑂 2 (A_𝐶𝑂 2 ).Producing one ton of OPC implies producing another ton of 𝐶𝑂 2 , accounting for a 7% carbon footprint on a global scale.The RULPS of Reinforced Concrete (RC) housing due to reinforcement corrosion doubles A_𝐶𝑂 2 emissions.Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars do not corrode.The objective is to contribute to reducing 𝐶𝑂 2 emissions in RC constructions.The behavior of GFRP and STEEL concrete reinforcement was studied separately through shear, flexion, and traction in concrete beams.Three specimens of simply reinforced concrete beams with steel (V1SRA, V2SRA, and V3SRA) were fabricated according to ASTM C-31, as well as a model of a simply reinforced beam with GFRP (V1SRP).Flexural tests using the three-point method were executed on a SHIMADZU machine.Numerical records were organized for statistical processing.It was found that the tensile strength of GFRP bars applied as reinforcement in concrete beams exceeds by 37.41% the tensile strength of reinforcing steel bars under the same conditions.It is reported that the beam model (VSRP, 𝐴 𝑓 =1.571 𝑐𝑚 2 ) does not show significant fissures before failure.It is concluded that the toughness of polymer bars reinforced with glass fibers significantly attenuates the generation of fissures and cracks in concrete beams.In this sense, the useful life of concrete structures is stabilized.The two materials studied must coexist as a philosophy of sustainable design.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".