Effect of CFRP layers on the behavior of shear-strengthened RC-beams: U-wrapping versus full wrapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of externally bonded (EB) carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) fabrics for structural strengthening increasingly shows evidence of effectiveness for the rehabilitation of existing structures. However, debonding of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), particularly in shear, is still a major premature failure mode when using FRP sheets to strengthen concrete structures. This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of the performance of full-scale reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened in shear using EB-FRP U-wrapping (UW) and full wrapping (FW) with different fabric thicknesses. Full wrapping is used mostly on columns with all sides accessible and does not generally apply to beams. The main objectives of this study are to optimize FRP capacity and to evaluate the effect of confinement and the effectiveness of FRP using different strengthening configurations for RC beams, such as FW and UW. The results obtained in this study reveal that fully wrapped beams exhibit enhanced CFRP contribution to shear resistance compared to U-wrapped beams. In addition, the FW configuration eliminated the CFRP debonding failure mode and resulted in an increase in concrete strain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".