Mechanism of Bond Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Rods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.002 | 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".