Fatigue behaviour of concrete beams post-tensioned with unbonded carbon fibre reinforced polymer tendons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has been conducted in the past decade to evaluate the suitability of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement in concrete structures. Most of the research has concentrated on the short-term performance of FRP prestressed and reinforced concrete beams. Only a limited amount of research has considered the fatigue behaviour of FRP prestressed beams. This paper presents an experimental research program designed to examine the fatigue behaviour of unbonded carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) post-tensioned concrete beams. The fatigue test program consisted of five large-scale (4.0 m span) concrete T-beams. Three of the beams were post-tensioned with CFRP tendons, and the remaining two beams were post-tensioned with steel prestressing strands. The fatigue load limits were chosen to produce an additional stress range of about 100 MPa in the lower prestressing reinforcement. During fatigue testing, some of the prestressing strands fractured at the anchor location. In the steel post-tensioned beams, fracture of wires in the seven-wire prestressing strands did not result in total failure of the steel post-tensioned beams, as the unbroken wires continued to carry prestress force. In the CFRP post-tensioned beams, however, fracture led to splintering of the tendon between the anchors and total loss of prestress force. In general, the CFRP post-tensioned beams performed satisfactorily in fatigue, in comparison with the steel post-tensioned beams, as long as premature failure of the tendons near the anchor location was prevented.Key words: fibre reinforced polymer (FRP), anchorage, tendon, fatigue, post-tension, concrete, beam, dynamic, testing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".