MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415733302 · doi:10.1061/jccof2.cceng-5334

Durability of GFRP Bars under Compression with Different Length-to-Diameter Ratios Exposed to a Simulated Concrete Environment

2025· article· en· W4415733302 on OpenAlexaff
Žaneta Šenšelová, Allan Manalo, Omar Alajarmeh, Hiroki Sakuraba, Abdullah Iftikhar, Brahim Benmokrane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticDurabilityCompressive strengthReinforcementCompression (physics)Bar (unit)Glass fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207