MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanics of Bond Fatigue Behavior of Concrete Beams Strengthened with NSM CFRP Rods

2011· article· en· W2003252376 on OpenAlexaff
Noran Wahab, Khaled Soudki, Timothy P. Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRodComposite materialEpoxyAdhesiveBeam (structure)Tension (geology)Fibre-reinforced plasticBendingStructural engineeringCarbon fiber reinforced polymerBond strengthReinforcementReinforced concreteUltimate tensile strengthLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bond tests were conducted on 28 concrete beams strengthened with near-surface mounted (NSM) carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) rods under different fatigue load levels. In the NSM technique, the CFRP rods are placed inside precut grooves and bonded to the concrete with epoxy adhesive. The test variables included: presence of internal tension steel reinforcement (unreinforced or reinforced), type of CFRP rod (spirally wound or sandblasted), and the fatigue load level. The beams were tested in four-point bending. Bond failure was by debonding between the CFRP rod and the epoxy that started at sections close to the beam midspan. As the load was cycled further, debonding propagated toward the supports. At failure, the beams strengthened with a given rod type (sandblasted or spirally wound) showed the same CFRP strain at sections close to the support. The sandblasted rods showed a better bond fatigue performance than the spirally wound rods, which, at a given load level, failed at a higher number of cycles.

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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