Experimental study on the behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets bonded to concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a study on the interfacial behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets when applied to concrete members as external reinforcement. Two bond test methods that are detailed in the paper were used in separate test series to study the bond behavior and failure mechanism of CFRP sheets bonded to concrete. A modified push-apart test method was proposed and tested. It was concluded that there existed an effective length beyond which there will be no increase in the ultimate capacity of the joint. An experimental test method to determine the effective bond length was also proposed and tested. The strains at the edge of the CFRP sheets are consistently higher than those at the center. The anchorage requirements for the CFRP sheets were also investigated in this study. Anchor sheets placed at 90° to the primary test sheets and bonded underneath the tested sheet showed better or equivalent overall bond behavior compared with those bonded on top of the tested sheet. The distance at which the anchor sheet is placed from the crack does not appear to change the bond behavior.Key words: bond, concrete, debonding, failure mechanism, carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets, anchor sheets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".