Experimental Study on Static Strength of Damaged Concrete Arches Reinforced by Corrugated Steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcing old bridges with corrugated steel (CS) is gaining interest due to outstanding reinforcement effects and relative ease of implementation. The approach consists of positioning the CS member under an old bridge and joining the two components by postcast concrete. However, the current design approach ignores the supporting effect of postcast concrete and the old bridges, which is overly conservative. This paper studies experimentally the static performance of the reinforced concrete (RC) arches reinforced with CS, mainly considering the influence of damage degree of the original structure. Two RC arches were prepared and loaded up to 60% and 100% of their ultimate bearing capacity, respectively. After reinforcing and reloading, failure modes, bearing capacity, and ductility of the reinforced specimens were obtained. The results show that when reinforcing the arches with CS, the ultimate bearing capacity increased by 172.8% and 194.0%, respectively. Comparison of the two reinforced specimens shows that the damage degree has only a small effect (8.2%) on the ultimate bearing capacity. Besides, the original structure, postcast concrete and CS were well bonded based on the strain analysis, proving the reinforced structure has the composite effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".