Bond Behavior of Corroded Steel Reinforcement in Concrete Wrapped with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the ability of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrapping to enhance the bond of corroded reinforcing steel bars in concrete. Thirty-two bond pullout specimens were considered. Test variables included the clear concrete cover (15, 30, and 60 mm or 0.6, 1.2, and 2.4 in.), degree of corrosion (0, 1, 5, 7, and 10% mass loss), and presence or absence of transverse CFRP wrapping. The specimens consisted of a concrete prism measuring 150×150×200mm(6×6×8in.) with a No. 10 M reinforcing bar placed in the corner of the prism. The specimens were constructed with 3% Cl- by weight of cement premixed in the concrete to depassify the tensile reinforcing steel. The specimens were placed in a constant high-humidity environment, and corrosion was induced by means of an impressed current. Following corrosion, the specimens were tested by bar pullout to determine the bond strength versus slip of the reinforcing bars. The bond strength of the reinforcing bars in the concrete prisms increased at a small level of corrosion, but decreased as the degree of corrosion increased. The failure mode typically was bond splitting in unwrapped specimens. Strengthened specimens exhibited an increased bond strength and failure by bar pullout due to the confining effects of the CFRP strengthening.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it