Experimental evaluation of bond behaviour and structural performance of novel thermoplastic composite FRP grids in concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) have emerged as effective alternatives to traditional steel reinforcement due to their superior corrosion resistance, high strength-to-weight ratio, and low thermal conductivity. This experimental study evaluates the bond performance between concrete and a novel thermoplastic composite grid composed of fibre-reinforced thermoplastic tapes. The research thoroughly examines the critical parameters that influence bond strength, including fibre type, resin type, tape thickness, embedment length, and the arrangement of longitudinal and cross tapes. Bond tests of individual tapes and composite grids demonstrated that cross tapes effectively provide sufficient anchorage through bearing action, allowing longitudinal tapes to achieve their full tensile capacity. Structural performance was further validated through bending tests on seven concrete beams reinforced with these composite grids, confirming their suitability as reinforcement by achieving FRP rupture without slippage. Overall, the findings highlight the promising potential of thermoplastic composite grids for enhancing durability, structural performance, and sustainability in concrete applications.
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) | 0.001 | 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".