Bond Strength of Tension Lap Splices in High-Strength Concrete Beams Strengthened with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wraps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the experimental results of the first phase of a study undertaken at the American University of Beirut to examine the effectiveness of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps to confine steel reinforcement in a tension lap splice region anchored in high-strength reinforced-concrete beams. Seven beam specimens were constructed. The specimens were reinforced on the tension side with three deformed bars spliced at midspan. The splice region was devoid of any transverse reinforcement to allow a full examination of the FRP wrap contribution. Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets were used. The main test variables were the GFRP configuration in the splice region (one strip, two strips, or a continuous strip), and the number of layers of the GFRP wraps placed around the splice region (one layer or two layers). All GFRP wraps were U-shaped. Except for the epoxy adhesive, no other anchorage mechanism or bonding procedure was applied for the GFRP wraps on the concrete beam. Following the application of the GFRP wraps, the beams were tested in positive bending. The test results demonstrated that GFRP wraps were effective in enhancing the bond strength and ductility of failure mode of the tension lap splices, especially when continuous strips were applied over the splice region.
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) | 0.000 | 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".