FRP for Sustainable, Resilient, and Seismically Resistant Concrete Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research, underway at the University of Toronto, investigates FRP-reinforced concrete structures under extreme environments and extreme loads such as seismic to establish robust design guidelines.This article summarizes the performance of FRP and FRP-reinforced concrete structures under extreme weather conditions, addressing durability concerns exacerbated by climate change.FRP composites, including bars and sheets, offer corrosion resistance, lightweight properties, and high strength-to-weight ratios, making them viable alternatives to steel reinforcement.However, their susceptibility to degradation under extreme temperatures necessitated rigorous evaluation.A multi-phase experimental and analytical research program was conducted, encompassing tensile tests, bond assessments, beam analyses, and FRP-wrapped cylinder studies under varied thermal and environmental conditions.Test results revealed critical insights: FRP sheets exhibited a 30-40% bond strength reduction at 60C (exceeding resin glass transition temperatures), while GFRP bars experienced up to 26% bond strength loss after prolonged 80C exposure.Over-reinforced beams, aligned with Canadian design codes (CSA S806-12/S6-19), demonstrated minimal strength degradation (5%) under thermal conditioning, underscoring the importance of design philosophy.Externally FRP-wrapped shear-critical beams showed enhanced strength (up to 112% for GFRP and 96% for CFRP under ambient conditions), though elevated temperatures reduced effectiveness by 10-20%.FRP confinement improved concrete cylinder ductility by 600%-700%, yet epoxy softening at 60C diminished strength gains by 15% to 53%.Freeze-thaw cycles had a negligible impact on FRP-wrapped specimens.Analytical efforts yielded empirical models predicting GFRP bar tensile strength decay at elevated temperatures and theoretical models for the shear capacity of FRP-reinforced beams, validated with experimental data (average predicted-to-test ratios of 0.96-1.00).The findings summarized in this article advocate for revised code provisions to account for temperature-dependent FRP performance, ensuring sustainable, resilient infrastructure.By integrating material behaviour, structural response, and environmental effects, this research advances FRP applications in climate-adaptive construction.
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".