Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs with Bonded CFRP Laminates: Strain Compatibility Paradox
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Externally bonded Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) Laminates have been extensively used to strengthen reinforced concrete beams and slabs in flexure. Most design codes of practice provisions assume full strain compatibility between the FRP laminates and the concrete section in order to estimate the moment re-sistance of this hybrid system. However, as shown here, strain compatibility is lost during the early stages of loading. The current design methodologies account for premature failure due to interfacial crack debonding mechanisms by limiting the strains in the FRP to low values, resulting in the use of only a small portion of the FRP laminate capacity. Experimental investigations previously performed on precast bridge girders, hollow core slabs, and beam specimens – all with CFRP laminates bonded to their soffits – highlight the loss of strain compatibility and interfacial debonding. In this paper, recommendations are presented in order to tackle both issues.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it