Postfatigue Monotonic Behavior of RC Beams Strengthened with Prestressed NSM CFRP Strips: Ductility Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexural behavior of fatigued reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened using prestressed near surface mounted (NSM) carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) strips was investigated. Five RC beams were tested; one beam served as a control unstrengthened beam, while the other beams were prestressed to strain values corresponding to 0, 21, 40, and 60% of the CFRP ultimate tensile strain. The beams were subjected to fatigue load conditions for 3 million cycles. Thereafter, the postfatigue monotonic flexural behavior of the beams was compared with identical unfatigued beams. Test results showed that the fatigue loading had a minor effect on the bond performance at the concrete-epoxy interface of the RC beams. In general, fatigue loading did not affect significantly the postfatigue monotonic performance of the tested beams in terms of yield and ultimate loads and deflections, as compared with identical unfatigued beams tested in static conditions. The ductility of the tested beams was also evaluated and compared with similar unfatigued beams using several ductility models found in the literature. No fatigue effect on ductility (NFED) prestress strain was introduced and proposed as a mean to define the prestress strain at which the fatigue loading has no effect on the ductility of the RC strengthened beams. The NFED prestress strain for the particular specimens that were considered in this research ranges from 62 to 82% of the CFRP ultimate tensile strain, which indicates that the ductility of the fatigued beams is higher than that of the unfatigued beams for most of the practical prestress values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".