Bond Behavior of Cleaned Corroded Lap Spliced Beams Repaired with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets and Partial Depth Repairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research investigated the bond behavior of a cleaned corroded reinforcing bar repaired with a partial depth concrete repair and a partial depth concrete repair followed by the application of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets. Twelve lap splice beams were cast and tested under static loading. The test variables considered were a partial depth repair with prepackaged self-consolidating concrete (SCC) for six lap splice beams and additional confinement with carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets for another six beams. The test results for the repaired lap splice beams were compared with those for a monolithic lap splice beam. This research found that the average bond strength increased as the bar mass loss increased for all bonded lengths. The lap splice beams repaired with partial depth were able to repair concrete with similar properties to those of the monolithic concrete. However, they had higher concrete strength than the monolithic beams which showed a higher average bond strength than the monolithic lap splice beams. The beams confined with FRP sheets showed a rise in the bond strength and the equivalent slip by 34–49%, and 56–260% as compared to the unconfined beams, respectively.
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) | 0.002 | 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".