Strengthening RC Beams in Flexure Using New Hybrid FRP Sheet/Ductile Anchor System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores a new hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheet/ductile anchor system for rehabilitation of reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The advantages of the proposed strengthening method is that it overcomes the problem of low ductility that is associated with brittle failure mode in conventional methods of strengthening beams using epoxy-bonded FRP sheets. The proposed system leads to a ductile failure mode by triggering yielding to occur in a steel anchor system (steel links) rather than by rupture or debonding of FRP sheets, which is sudden in nature. Four half-scale RC T-beams were tested under four-point bending. Three retrofitted beams were strengthened using one layer of carbon FRP sheet. The results of the two beams that were strengthened with the new hybrid FRP sheet/ductile anchor system were compared with the results from the beam strengthened with conventional FRP bonding method and the control beam. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed strengthening system in increasing flexural capacity and ductility of RC beams.
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 | 0.001 | 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".