Multiscale analysis of the flexural performance of FRP reinforced concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on existing experimental data and analysis, seven different fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bar models including carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP), aramid fiber-reinforced polymer (AFRP), glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP), GFRP and CFRP combined (G–C), GFRP and AFRP combined (G–A), BFRP and CFRP combined (B–C), and BFRP and AFRP combined (B–A) were established. Finite element simulation analysis was conducted on seven different FRP bar combinations under static load bending tests. The flexural behavior of the specimens reinforced with different FRP bar combinations and their influencing factors were analyzed. The results showed that using AFRP as the reinforcement material for FRP composite bars in FRP reinforced concrete beams cannot effectively enhance the overall load-carrying capacity of the composite bars. The combination of CFRP with GFRP and BFRP bars significantly increases the stiffness of the FRP bar structure and improves the structural load-carrying capacity of the concrete beams.
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 | 0.001 | 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".