CFRP Prestressed High-Strength Concrete Prisms Subjected to Direct Tension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the behavior of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) prestressed high-strength concrete prisms under direct tension. Seven prestressed concrete prisms with different levels of prestressing were cast and tested. Prisms were 50×50mm in cross section and their lengths varied between 1,400 and 2,000mm. Concrete compressive strength was as high as 147MPa. Tension stiffening, crack width, and crack spacing in prisms were investigated. Concrete properties, such as the stress–strain relationship under direct tension and bond strength, were also determined. Test results revealed that tension stiffening in CFRP prestressed high-strength concrete is significant when higher concrete strength and higher prestressing level are applied. Tension stiffening factors are proposed based on the postcracking behavior of concrete. Experimental results also showed that increasing the prestressing level increases the amount of tension stiffening and reduces the number of cracks, which delays their appearance. However, cracks widened at a faster rate in the prisms with higher prestressing levels. Experimental results were compared with Comite Euro-International du Beton and American Concrete Institute proposed equations. Modifications were suggested for the above-mentioned equations to account for use of CFRP bars in prestressed sections.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".