Effect of geogrid reinforcement on tensile failure of high-strength self-compacted concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the tensile strength, failure mechanism and ductile behaviour of geogrid-reinforced high-strength self-compacting concrete discs subjected to both the Brazilian tensile strength test and a biaxial compressive test are studied. To determine the combined effects of geogrid layer numbers and inclination angle on the ultimate tensile strength of concrete samples, 21 experiments were conducted with up to three layers of geogrids inclined at angles of 0° to 90°, at increments of 15°. In addition, discrete-element numerical simulations were conducted using two-dimensional particle flow code to examine the failure behaviour of geogrid-reinforced high-strength self-compacting concrete discs. The numerical models were first calibrated by the experimental results and then the failure behaviour of models containing geogrids was investigated. Both experimental and numerical results demonstrate that augmenting the concrete discs with geogrids increases the ductility of specimens, especially after failure. As the number of geogrid layers increased, the tensile strength of specimens also increased, whereas the tensile strength and absorbed energy were the same for specimens with different numbers of geogrid layers and inclination angles of 75° and 90°. The specimen with three horizontal geogrid layers had the highest tensile strength, biaxial compression strength and ductility of all specimens tested.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".