Behavior of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Members under Combined Bending Moment and Low Axial Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined nine concrete members reinforced with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, exploring the impact of combined bending moment and low axial loads. Three reinforcement ratios (1.7%, 2.5%, and 3.3%) were considered under various axial loads (0, 125, and 250 kN). In the absence of a standardized test method for determining the compressive properties of rebars, a simple approach was adopted. GFRP bars demonstrated a compressive modulus of elasticity that was roughly equivalent to their tensile modulus, along with a compressive strength reaching approximately 70% of their tensile strength. The main tests on members showed that increasing the reinforcement ratio to 3.3% resulted in a 4% reduction in bending resistance with a 2% axial load, while a ratio of 2.5% led to a 7% decrease; conversely, a lower ratio of 1.7% showed a 2% increase in bending resistance under the same load. An analytical model incorporating GFRP bar compression contributions was developed for cross-sectional analysis. It was verified against experimental and literature data, to conduct parametric studies on the impact of reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, GFRP modulus, and strength on the interaction diagram shape under low axial loads. The results demonstrated that there are two major cases of interaction diagram slope in the proximity of the pure moment axis. At higher reinforcement ratios, the moment resistance diminishes at low axial loads when compared with pure moment conditions. However, more research is needed to verify the repeatability of the test results and draw conclusive empirical evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".