Externally applied FRP reinforcement for concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n December 1996, CEB established a Task Group with the main objective to elaborate design guidelines for the use of FRP reinforcement in accordance with the design format of the CEB-FIP Model Code and Eurocode2. With the merger of CEB and FIP into fib in June 1998, this Task Group became fib TG 9.3 FRP Reinforcement for concrete structures in Commission 9 Reinforcing and Prestressing Materials and Systems. Finally, as a result of the restructuring of fib’s Commissions and Task Groups at the end of 2014, the Task Group became fib T5.1 FRP Reinforcement for concrete structures, chaired by Stijn Matthys at Ghent University, in Commission 5 Reinforcements.\nThe work of former TG 9.3 and current T5.1 was performed by two working parties (WP), one of which is “Externally Applied Reinforcement” (EAR), which produced fib bulletin 14 “Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures” in July 2001. Following a number of years of relatively slow activity, the WP on externally applied reinforcement was reactivated and started working on an update of bulletin 14. The result of this work is summarised in the present technical report, which aims to give design guidelines on the use of externally applied FRP reinforcement (both externally bonded and near-surface mounted) for concrete structures. An attempt has been made to present some of the topics in a Eurocode-compatible format, so that the material covered may form the basis for the introduction of composites in the next version of Eurocode 2 and for the updating of the text on seismic retrofitting with composites in the next version of Eurocode 8.\nAll persons who participated in the preparation of this Bulletin are mentioned in the copyright page. Further acknowledgements are due to Josée Bastien (Canada), Hans Rudolf Ganz (Switzerland) and Luc Taerwe (Belgium) for revision of the document. To all members of the working party on externally applied reinforcement our sincere thanks are expressed for the high quality and extensive work brought in on a voluntary basis.\n\nStijn MATTHYS, Convenor of TG5.1\n \nThanasis TRIANTAFILLOU, Convenor of WG EAR\n\nTheodore NEFF, Chair of Commission 5
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".