Small Beam Bond Test Method for CFRP Composites Applied to Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the development of a test method that can be used to test the bond capacity of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites bonded to concrete. The rationale for the selection of the test method is described along with the results of the experimental work used to refine the test configuration and procedures. The research objectives were to develop a test method that (1) can be used to evaluate the durability of the FRP-concrete bond (adhesion failure mode); (2) facilitate multiple replicate for statistical validation; (3) is simple to conduct; and (4) provides comparative results that are easy to interpret. The method utilizes a small concrete beam modeled after the modulus of rupture test, which is typically used to measure concrete tensile strength. A number of small beam sizes and loading configurations were considered during the investigation. The final recommended specimen configuration is 4×4×14 in. (100 mm×100 mm×356 mm) beam with a half-depth saw cut at midspan. A 1 in. (25 mm) wide by 8 in. (203 mm) long CFRP strip is applied to the tension face of the beam over the saw cut. The specimen is loaded until failure with a single concentrated load at midspan over a 12 in. (305 mm) span. For durability testing, samples are prepared with the same materials and exposed to the desired accelerated conditioning protocol. Companion unexposed samples are also tested and the relative decrease in capacity is reported as the load to failure of the exposed specimen to that of the control specimen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".