Bond of high-strength concrete under monotonic pull-out loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation was conducted on high-strength concrete specimens to examine the bond strength characteristics under monotonic loading. The range of compressive strengths tested was between 70 and 95 MPa. The influences of load history, confining reinforcement, bar diameter, concrete strength, reinforcement spacing and rate of pull out were investigated experimentally. The internal concrete strains close to the contact surface and also the steel strain were measured. The test set-up, load application, instrumentation and measurement, and test procedure were designed to measure strains and deformations. Several specimens with reinforcement bar diameters of 20, 25 and 35 mm were tested. The test results revealed that the bond strength of high-strength concrete is higher than the corresponding normal strength concrete. However, the bond behaviour of high-strength concrete is more brittle in comparison with normal strength concrete. The concrete strains were measured around the steel reinforcement. Concrete strain measurements are useful to identify the internal crack pattern and to predict possible failure modes. The area under the curve of the bond stress–slip curve can define the bond energy. The bond energy is related to ductility and can be used along with the bond strength in evaluating the bond behaviour of high-strength concrete.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".