Modulus Effect of Bonded CFRP Laminates Used for Repairing Preyield and Postyield Cracked Concrete Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two different prerepair loading histories were simulated in 3,000×300×150 mm reinforced concrete beams, namely cracking within the elastic range, and overloading in the plastic range. After unloading, the beams were repaired with either high or ultrahigh modulus (210 or 400 GPa) carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) plates, or a hybrid system, and then reloaded to failure. It was shown that the level of preexisting damage has insignificant effect on strengthening effectiveness and failure mode at ultimate. The 210 and 400 GPa CFRP of reinforcement ratio ρf=0.17% increased the yielding load by 33 and 60%, respectively, whereas the ultimate strength was increased by up to 29 and 51%, respectively. Doubling ρf of the 400 GPa CFRP to 0.34% resulted in a 63% overall gain in flexural strength, which is only an 8% increase over ρf=0.17%, because of change in failure mode from rupture to concrete cover delamination. The beam retrofitted by hybrid CFRP showed remarkable pseudoductility and warning signs. The parametric study revealed a critical balance in proportioning the areas of hybrid CFRP to achieve reliable pseudoductility. A maximum of 30% ρf of 400 GPa CFRP is recommended. A higher percentage would lead to a final ultimate load lower than the first failure peak load.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".