Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis on the Flexural Performance of High Modulus HFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams during Normal Usestage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-modulus FRP bars used to reinforce concrete structures tend to result in wide cracks and large deflections during the service stage, significantly impacting the structure's usability and safety.This limitation has hindered the widespread application of such materials in engineering.To address this issue, this study investigates the factors affecting the flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with high-modulus HFRP bars during the service stage.Through four-point bending tests on 3 beams reinforced with singletype FRP bars and 10 beams reinforced with high-modulus HFRP bars, the study analyzes the effects of bar material type, hybrid ratio, reinforcement ratio, and concrete strength grade on the failure mode, crack width, and deflection of high-modulus HFRP-reinforced concrete beams during the service stage.The test results indicate that, compared to beams reinforced with single low-modulus FRP bars, the increased modulus of elasticity brought by fiber hybridization effectively suppresses deflection and crack development in highmodulus HFRP-reinforced concrete beams during the service stage.The findings of this study provide guidance for the design and development of high-modulus HFRP-reinforced 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".