MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795672659 · doi:10.1504/ijsmss.2018.10024431

Influence of fibres on the rebar-concrete bond: further evidence of toughness enhancement

2018· article· en· W2795672659 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Goffin, Nemkumar Banthia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Materials and Structural Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRebarMaterials scienceComposite materialToughnessSofteningSlip (aerodynamics)PolypropyleneStress (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bond between the rebar and the surrounding concrete plays a substantial role in the mechanical performance of a reinforced concrete member due to the stress transfer that occurs at the aforementioned interface. In this study direct rebar pull out tests were performed at different concrete maturities, fibre contents and fibre materials. PET fibres, that have a lower energy requirement during production and improved properties in comparison to polypropylene were used and their performance compared to steel fibres. The addition of fibres leads to a more ductile failure during pull-out. The improved energy absorption capacity is particularly important under seismic loading. Interestingly, a small amount of fibres is enough to notably improve the post-failure behaviour by reducing the softening slope of the stress-slip curve. An increase in fibre content beyond 0.1% for PET fibres does not improve the post-failure behaviour any further. However, steel fibres continue to improve the post-peak behaviour. Thus, the effect of steel fibres is more significant compared to PET fibres and the most pronounced at a high concrete maturity. An analytical model describing the bond stress slip response is proposed and matches the experimental observations well.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Materials and Structural SystemsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207