Experimental and Analytical Study of Bond Stress–Slip Behavior at the CFRP-to-Concrete Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of externally bonded (EB) carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) systems for strengthening existing structures, such as RC beams, has been widely approved in the construction industry worldwide for its numerous benefits. The CFRP-to-concrete bond has a governing role in the reliability and effectiveness of EB-CFRP systems. Indeed, failure of the CFRP-to-concrete bond can lead to rupture of CFRP-strengthened structures. Hence, ongoing research into assessment of bond behavior at the CFRP-to-concrete interface helps to bring more insightful clarity to the use of EB-CFRP strengthening techniques. The aim of this study is to evaluate the bond behavior between CFRP and concrete by conducting a series of pullout tests. The parameters considered include CFRP type (sheet versus laminate), bonded length, and bonded CFRP width. The results show that using CFRP fabric sheets can contribute to higher bond load-carrying capacity and ductility than CFRP laminates. Furthermore, through the analyses of databases in the literature, a bilinear bond–slip model is proposed that takes into account the CFRP width factor. Through a comparison, it is shown that the proposed model performs well in terms of predicting the maximum local bond stress and CFRP slippage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".