An experimental study on bond–slip in moderately confined concrete subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading using an experimental plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results from an experimental investigation of the bond–slip performance of moderately confined concrete under monotonic and cyclic loading. The effects of six factors on the bond–slip response and on the bond mechanisms are investigated. These factors are grouped into two categories: the first category of four factors is related to the confining conditions, the second category to the loading conditions. A total of 43 pullout tests under monotonic and cyclic loadings were performed. Results show that the quantity of confining steel and the distance between the tested bar and the confining steel are the most important factors affecting the overall bond response. Bar spacing and height of concrete cast below the bar have less significant effects on the overall response, affecting mainly the initial response phase. The height of concrete cast below the tested bar is found to affect the maximum bond resistance to the same extent as in well-confined concrete. Cyclic bond behaviour of moderately confined concrete is found to be similar in shape and in cyclic degradation to that of well-confined concrete. It was also found that most of the bond response parameters, such as maximum bond resistance and the post-peak (softening) phase, can be predicted with excellent accuracy in terms of the factors investigated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".