Bond Strength of Fusion Bonded Epoxy-Coated Reinforcement in Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fusion-bonded epoxy-coated steel is expected to extend the service life of the reinforced concrete structure in chloride-laden environments. However, the effect of coating on the bond-strength between rebar and concrete is not well understood yet. This research, therefore, studied the effect of epoxy-coating on the bond characteristics of reinforcing bars in concrete. The bond characteristics were assessed through pullout test considering variables viz. concrete strength, embedded length and bar diameter. The load was applied to reinforcing bars embedded in concrete until bond strength between the bar and concrete exceeded. Bond strength of epoxy-coated bars was compared with that of the uncoated bars. It was found that epoxy-coating reduced the bond strength approximately 25% for Ø20mm bar and 12% for Ø16mm and Ø12mm bar. As with uncoated bar, bond strength of coated bars were also increased with concrete strength. However, the bond strength ratio between coated and uncoated bars was found almost independent of concrete strength. Based on the test results, a development length modification factor of 1.33 is proposed for Ø20mm bar and 1.15 for Ø12mm and Ø16mm bar to compensate the bond strength reduction due to the epoxy coating.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".