Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bonding between the Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) rods and concrete is one important factor that determines the performance of FRP reinforced concrete structure. The objective of this study is to measure the interfacial bond strength and to understand the factors that influence this. Two types of interfacial bond strength, Intrinsic Interfacial Bond Strength and Apparent Interfacial Bond Strength have been defined and measured using a single fiber pull-out test. Composite tendons with various surface profiles such as smooth, with lugs, sand coated and machined surface, were tested to study the effect of surface roughness, frictional resistance and bearing resistance on the measured intrinsic and apparent shear strength values. Loading rates were also varied to study their influence on the debond progression and on the measured apparent shear strength. Based on the experimental results following conclusions can be made: (a) Apparent bond strength between the FRP-concrete interface is attributed to bonding mechanisms such as chemical bonding, confinement pressure, frictional resistance and bearing resistance. (b) Contribution from intrinsic bonding mechanisms such as chemical bonding and confinements pressure alone is not sufficient to achieve high FRP-concrete bond strength. (c) Further improvement of the apparent bond strength can be achieved by additional mechanisms such frictional resistance and bearing resistance. (d) Apparent bond strength of sand particle coating (ISOROD(tm)) is influenced by the loading rate due to relatively higher contribution from frictional resistance.
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) | 0.000 | 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".