Influence of fibres on the rebar-concrete bond: further evidence of toughness enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bond between the rebar and the surrounding concrete plays a substantial role in the mechanical performance of a reinforced concrete member due to the stress transfer that occurs at the aforementioned interface. In this study direct rebar pull out tests were performed at different concrete maturities, fibre contents and fibre materials. PET fibres, that have a lower energy requirement during production and improved properties in comparison to polypropylene were used and their performance compared to steel fibres. The addition of fibres leads to a more ductile failure during pull-out. The improved energy absorption capacity is particularly important under seismic loading. Interestingly, a small amount of fibres is enough to notably improve the post-failure behaviour by reducing the softening slope of the stress-slip curve. An increase in fibre content beyond 0.1% for PET fibres does not improve the post-failure behaviour any further. However, steel fibres continue to improve the post-peak behaviour. Thus, the effect of steel fibres is more significant compared to PET fibres and the most pronounced at a high concrete maturity. An analytical model describing the bond stress slip response is proposed and matches the experimental observations well.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".