Comparative studies on interfacial bond performance of ultrahigh performance concrete (UHPC) for sustainable repair of bridges and pavements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• This study examined the bond performance at substrate-UHPC interfaces using smooth, exposed aggregate/fiber, and groove surface preparations. • The presence of steel fibers at the interface plays an important role in bond capacity. • The pressure washed and exposed aggregate surface preparations exhibited superior bond performance. Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC) is emerging as an innovative sustainable solution to rehabilitate deteriorated concrete pavements and bridges. In such usage, UHPC may be cast against different substrate materials such as normal strength concrete (NSC) for bridge strengthening and rehabilitation or against high strength concrete (HSC) for shear key connections. UHPC may also be cast against precast UHPC due to the rapid increase in using precast UHPC components. Although the UHPC usage in above applications has recently increased, an investigation of bond performance between UHPC and three different substrate materials have not yet been investigated. The study examined the bond performance between cast-in-place UHPC and three different substrate materials. Three different surface preparations were considered in the current study: smooth, exposed aggregate/fibers and grooved. To generalize the outcomes from the present study, three different test methods including, splitting, bi-shear and slant shear with three different slants were selected. The experimental results demonstrated that the UHPC adhered better with NSC and HSC substrates when the pressure washing was used to expose the aggregate. Meanwhile, the UHPC had better bond with grooved surface preparation of UHPC substrate. The smooth surface should be avoided when UHPC cast against all substrates. Furthermore, the friction coefficients from the codes were overestimated for smooth surface regardless the substrate strengths. However, the design codes provided a conservative estimate for both cohesion and friction coefficients for exposed aggregate/fibers and grooved interface surface preparations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it