Assessment of Development and Lap-Splice Lengths for New Generation GFRP Bars in Flexural Concrete Bridge and Structural Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the development and lap-splice length of high-modulus, high-tensile-strength new generation glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars under tension in concrete bridge and structural members. The bond strength is assessed using the splice beam test method on nine large-scale beams (300 mm × 450 mm cross section, 5,200 mm length) reinforced with spliced GFRP bars. The parameters included different staggering configurations, splicing percentages, and bar diameters. The splicing configurations involved center-to-center staggering distances of zero (not staggered), 1.0ld (partially staggered), and 1.3ld (fully staggered), with splicing percentages of 100%, 50%, and 33%, and bar diameters of 15.9 and 25.4 mm. Four-point bending tests examined load–deflection profiles, failure modes, crack widths, strain values, and bond strengths. Nonstaggered beams experienced very brittle failure due to splitting, while staggered beams exhibited less brittle failure due to multistage failure of the staggered spliced bars. Staggering increased load capacity and ductility, with fully staggered setups maintaining postfailure strength. Staggering also reduced crack width and enhanced bond and splice strength, particularly with lower splicing percentages and greater staggering distances. Although the splice length-to-bar diameter ratio was kept constant, beams containing three No. 5 spliced bars or two No. 8 bars exhibited notably lower average bond strength than those with two No. 5 bars, underscoring the critical role of bar diameter and clear spacing between splice bars in bond behavior. The development length equations in existing North American design codes often overestimate the bond strength of lap splices, particularly for larger bar diameters and smaller bar spacings. To address this anomaly, a new equation has been proposed for predicting the bond strength and splice length of GFRP bars in tension in flexural members, demonstrating improved accuracy compared with current codes. This advancement is essential for robust design practices in flexural GFRP-reinforced concrete bridges and structural members and may inform future revisions of design codes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".