Analytical Investigation on the Effect of Test Setup on Bond Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental procedures used for the study of reinforcement to concrete bond have been hampered for a long time by inconsistencies and large differences in the obtained behavior, such as bond strength and mode of failure, depending on the specimen form and setup used in the test. Bond is controlled by the mechanics of the interface between reinforcement and concrete, and is sensitive to the influences of extraneous factors, several of which underlie, but are not accounted for, in conventional pullout test setups. To understand and illustrate the importance of specimen form and testing arrangement, a series of computational simulations are used in the present work on eight distinct variants of conventional bar pullout test setups that are used routinely in experimental literature for the characterization of bond-slip laws. The resulting bond strength increase generated by unaccounted confining stress fields that arise around the bar because of the boundary conditions of the test setup is used to classify the tests with respect to their relevance with the intended use of the results. Of the pullout setups examined, the direct tension pullout test produced the most conservative bond strength results, completely eliminating the contributions from eccentricity and passive confinement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".