Bond Splitting Strength and Behavior of GFRP Reinforcement with Roughened Surface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
본 연구는 거친 표면을 갖는 GFRP 보강근의 쪼갬에 의한 부착파괴 거동과 파괴강도를 인발실험을 통해 규명하였다. 실험변수로서, 보강근의 직경, 콘크리트 피복 및 콘크리트 압축강도에 대하여 실험을 수행하였으며, 동일한 변수에 대하여 5개의 실험 결과를 평균하여 실험에 대한 오차를 최소화 하였다. 또한 쪼갬에 의한 부착파괴거동을 인발력과 변위결과로부터 고찰하였다. 쪼갬부착파괴강도 결과는 여러 연구자가 제안한 이형철근 및 FRP 보강근의 쪼갬부착파괴강도 평가모델식과 비교하였다. 분석결과, 거친표면을 갖는 GFRP 보강근의 쪼갬부착파괴강도는 Harajli 등(1995)이 제안한 모델을 이용하여 가장 근사하게 평가할 수 있는 것으로 나타났다. In this experimental study, bond splitting strength and behavior were evaluated through pull-out tests. The tests were conducted on a GFRP rebar with roughened surface which was produced by Canadian manufacturer. The used variables in this study were rebar diameter, cover depth and compressive strength of concrete. For each variable, five specimens were made and tested to obtain good results. The bond splitting behavior was investigated from the relationship of pull-out force and slip. The experimental bond splitting strength was compared with the predicted strength obtained from the equations presented by some researchers. The results of the comparison demonstrated that the strength could be predicted well by using the Harajli et al's equation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".