Flexural Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with End-Anchored Partially Bonded Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Strips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of experimental and analytical studies carried out to investigate the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with end-anchored partially bonded carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) strips. A total of six beams, each 2400 mm long, 150 mm wide, and 250 mm deep with a tension steel reinforcement ratio of 1.18%, were tested. One beam was left unstrengthened as the control, another beam was strengthened with a fully bonded CFRP strip, and the remaining four beams were strengthened with partially bonded CFRP strips placed on the tension face of the beam and fixed at both ends using a mechanical anchor. The influence of varying the CFRP unbonded length (250 mm, 750 mm, 2×500 mm, and 1,250 mm) on the beam flexural response was studied. The experimental results revealed that end-anchored partially bonded CFRP strips significantly enhanced the ultimate capacity of the control beam and performed better than the fully bonded strip with no end-anchorage. This observation stresses the importance of end-anchorage in such strengthening schemes, especially considering that the end-anchored partially bonded CFRP strengthened beams showed similar flexural behavior trends. Finally, an inelastic section analysis procedure that takes into consideration the incompatibility of strains was developed to verify the obtained test results. The analysis produced good predictions of the experimental results in terms of the moment-curvature response and showed the effect of CFRP unbonded length on the strain of the internal tension steel.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".