DEVELOPMENTS ON FRP REBARS AS INTERNAL REINFORCEMENT IN CONCRETE STRUCTURES AND FIELD APPLICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive research and field practices have established the design principle of using fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars to reinforce concrete structures. Material specifications and design aspects are now regulated through provisions governing certification testing, quality control/assessment, and FRP design. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) updated two provisions related to FRP materials and design. The 2019 edition of CSA S807 includes modifications to quality and qualification requirements, material properties, testing procedures, and material mechanical and durability limitations. Section 16 of CSA S6 (2019) was also updated to provide more rational design algorithms for fiber-reinforced structures and highway bridges, allowing practitioners to fully utilize the efficiency and economic appeal of FRP bars. Additionally, the recent editions of CSA S900.2 (2021) on the structural design of wastewater treatment plants and CSA S413 (2021) for parking garages include provisions on the use of FRP bars as high-durable reinforcement. This presentation provides an overview of the recent changes in Canadian codes and standards and explains the reasoning behind them. It also highlights examples of recent field applications of FRP bars in various types of concrete civil-engineering infrastructure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".