Bond Behavior of Ribbed Steel Bars or Seven-wire Strands in Lightweight Aggregate Concrete: A Numerical and Analytical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diameter of the bar is a fundamental factor influencing bond behavior, and it continues to be a subject of interest due to conflicting opinions regarding its impact on bond behavior in pull-out tests.This study aimed to assess the impact of ribbed steel bar (B500B) and seven-wire strand (grade 1860) diameters on bond behavior, employing both numerical and analytical methods.Utilizing ATENA 3D software, finite element (FE) models were constructed, and a variety of formulae were applied for analytical computations.The FE models were validated by comparing them with existing experimental and analytical results.The materials employed included reinforcement bars with diameters ranging from 8 to 17.8 mm and lightweight aggregate concrete with a compressive strength of 41.65 MPa.The FE results revealed a slight decrease in bond strength with an increase in bar diameter.This decrease can be attributed to the larger contact area resulting from the increased bar diameter, which surpasses the effect of force and leads to a reduction in bond strength.Furthermore, the bond strength between the ribbed steel bar and concrete was approximately twice that of the seven-wire strand when embedded in concrete.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".