Experimental and numerical investigation of the flexural behavior of one–way RC slabs strengthened with near–surface mounted and externally bonded systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the flexural performance of one-way reinforced concrete (RC) slabs strengthened with two distinct strengthening systems: near–surface mounted (NSM) bars and externally bonded (EB) carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strips. The NSM bars comprised four types: carbon FRP (CFRP), basalt FRP (BFRP), glass FRP (GFRP), and stainless–steel (SS) bars. The NSM–strengthened slabs showcased substantial enhancements in yield and ultimate load capacity, ranging from 20 % to 55 % and 59–123 %, respectively. In comparison, those strengthened with EB–CFRP strips displayed increases from 46 % to 107 % and 45–177 %, respectively, depending on the axial stiffness ratio of the strengthening system provided. Furthermore, the slabs reinforced with NSM–BFRP bars showed an 11–25 % improvement in their ductility indices. In contrast, the slabs reinforced with EB experienced a decrease in ductility ranging from 38 % to 50 %. This reduction was attributed to the differences in the modes of failure observed in both strengthening systems. The rupture of the NSM–FRP bars and the strain readings associated at the end of testing confirmed that the tensile strength of the NSM–FRP bars was fully exploited whereas the EB–CFRP strips utilized only 29–36 % of their ultimate tensile strain due to debonding. A finite element (FE) model was formulated to anticipate the behavior of the strengthened slabs. A strong correlation between the numerical predictions and the experimental outcomes was observed. The experimental–to–numerical ratios of the ultimate load ranged between 1.0 and 1.08 for the NSM–strengthened slabs and between 0.98 and 1.38 for the EB–strengthened slabs. This validated the FE models’ ability to capture the nonlinear performance of the strengthened slabs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".