Durability of GFRP Bars under Compression with Different Length-to-Diameter Ratios Exposed to a Simulated Concrete Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing interest in using glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars for reinforcement in compressive members such as concrete columns and bridge piers. However, the understanding of their long-term compression performance in an alkaline environment remains unknown. This study investigated the durability under compression of 12.7-mm-diameter GFRP bars with different length-to-diameter ratios (4, 8, and 16) by exposing them to an alkaline solution with a pH of 12.5–13.0, simulating the surrounding concrete environment. The effect of exposure temperature (23°C, 60°C, and 80°C) and exposure duration (42, 83, and 125 days) was evaluated. The results show that the retained compressive strength of GFRP bars after exposure to a simulated concrete environment varied with length-to-diameter ratios. The degradation of the resin-rich outer surface significantly impacted the compressive strength of the GFRP bars with length-to-diameter ratios of 4 and 8 because their failure mode of fiber crushing initiated from the bar surface. The GFRP bars with a length-to-diameter ratio of 16 failed by fiber-splitting mode under buckling, initiated from inside the bar, and their compressive strength was similar to that of unexposed GFRP bars. Analysis further revealed that temperature and exposure duration were statistically significant, affecting the compressive strength of the GFRP bars with length-to-diameter ratios of 4 and 8, but not those with a length-to-diameter ratio of 16. This study provides a detailed understanding of the durability of GFRP bars under compression, which will be useful in their effective design as longitudinal reinforcement in concrete structures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".