Bond Strength Between Cast-in-Place Ultra-High-Performance- Concrete and Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Plates Using Epoxy Bonded Coarse Silica Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A significant amount of attention has been directed toward the use of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) materials in structural applications, particularly as main components in hybrid structural members. As a result, the need for an effective connection mechanism that can maintain full composite action at the interface between adjacent dissimilar materials is critical in order to achieve optimum performance of the hybrid structural members. The objective of this experimental program was to investigate the bond performance between glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) plates and cast-in-place Ultra-High-Performance- Concrete (UHPC) using epoxy bonded coarse silica sand aggregates at the bond interface. Both shear and tension tests were conducted using three different types of epoxy adhesives. The general effectiveness of the connection mechanism at the bond interface as well as the relative performance of each epoxy adhesive used were investigated. Analysis showed that, of the three epoxy adhesives tested, the specimens bonded at the interface between the UHPC and GFRP plates using the moisture tolerant epoxy adhesive intended for bonding of hardened concrete and steel performed the best.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".