Composites and FRP-Strengthened Beams Subjected to Dry/Wet and Salt Fog Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon (CFRP) and glass (GFRP) fiber-reinforced composites of epoxy matrix are considered in the study, with greater emphasis on GFRP. Accelerated conditioning was imposed in the form of salt fog cycles, hygrothermal cycles (tap water), and tidal-like cycles (aqueous solution of NaCl, 50 g/L), both on laminate composites and on beams externally reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) on their soffit. Freeze/thaw cycles were also applied to the study of degradation of the laminates. Mechanical tests showed degradation due to damage to the matrices, fiber-matrix linkage or bond between FRP and concrete. Several advanced techniques were used to interpret the results and enable better understanding of the phenomenological data. Changes on the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the epoxy matrix are reported as possible indicators of decrease of the tensile strength of the GFRP composite. Attention is given to the evolution of the relative values of the tensile strength of concrete and adhesive along time given their importance on the effectiveness of the FRP-adhesive-concrete joints. The results revealed, e.g., that the more severe decrease of the carrying capacity of the beams was due to the salt fog cycles in the beams strengthened with CFRP.
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) | 0.001 | 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".