Prestressed lightweight concrete slabs strengthened with carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of applying carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer sheets together with a prestress force to strengthen lightweight reinforced concrete slabs was investigated experimentally and numerically. As reported in this paper, load–deflection curves, stiffness, energy-absorption capacity and crack width of the prestressed slabs were examined and a detailed numerical model is presented. Strengthening with polymer layers resulted in a larger lever arm, while prestressing slightly reduced the lever arm of the section. The maximum deflection of prestressed slabs was smaller than that of the control specimen due to a small reduction in energy absorption. Using polymer sheets increased both the strength and maximum ultimate deflection simultaneously due to a higher energy-absorption capacity. The formation and propagation of cracks was postponed due to prestressing, so the ultimate crack width was reduced. Owing to the increase in stiffness, the polymer strengthening reduced crack spacing, crack width and crack growth for all strengthened specimens. In addition, a parametric study revealed that the variations in tendon eccentricity had a significant influence on the force–displacement response of slabs, whereas variations in characteristic strength and dilation angle only had a slight effec/t.
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".