A general solution for predicting the interfacial debonding in plated beams
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
The flexural strength of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber beams can be enhanced by bonding a thin plate to its soffit. While this technique was shown to be highly effective, the development of predictive models for plate end debonding failures of such plated beams is essential for the wide application of this technique. Existing elastic interfacial stress analysis solutions fail to provide accurate predictions of debonding loads, where the bonded interface is subjected to nonlinear deformations. More recently the cohesive zone (CZ) model has been successfully used to predict the plate end debonding loads of a plated beam subjected to a three-point bending load. However, this existing solution is not general enough to assess plate end debonding failure loads of plated beams. So far only numerical modelling (e.g. finite element modelling) techniques exist as generally applicable methods for predicting interfacial stresses in plated beams. As a simple analytical alternative for such numerical modelling-based methods, this paper presents a simple yet accurate general solution for predicting plate end debonding loads of plated beams. The solution is applicable to all cases of plated beams covering all sectional (e.g. tapered beams), loading (e.g. distributed load) and boundary conditions (e.g. continuous beams). Accuracy of the solution is demonstrated through comparisons with finite element results.
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