MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanism of Bond Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Rods

2010· article· en· W1996669333 on OpenAlexaff
Noran Wahab, Khaled Soudki, Timothy P. Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRodComposite materialEpoxyTension (geology)Structural engineeringBendingAdhesiveCarbon fiber reinforced polymerFailure mode and effects analysisGroove (engineering)Prestressed concreteFibre-reinforced plasticReinforced concreteUltimate tensile strengthLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bond tests were conducted on concrete beams strengthened with near-surface-mounted (NSM) nonprestressed and prestressed carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) rods under static loading. In the NSM technique, the CFRP rods are placed inside precut grooves and bonded to the concrete with epoxy adhesive. Six concrete beams were tested. The test variables included presence of internal tension steel reinforcement (unreinforced and reinforced), use of NSM CFRP strengthening (nonprestressed and prestressed), and type of CFRP rod (spirally wound and sand blasted). The beams were tested statically in four-point bending. Based on the test results, the transfer length for the prestressed CFRP rod in epoxied groove was 150 and 210 mm for the sand blasted and spirally wound rods, respectively. The main failure mode was debonding between the CFRP rod and the epoxy that starts at sections close to the midspan then, as the load increases, it propagates toward the supports. At failure, the beams strengthened with a given rod type showed the same CFRP strain at sections close to the support (29% of ultimate strain for spirally wound bars and 39% of ultimate strain for sand blasted bars). A cracked section analysis was carried out and compared well with the measured results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207