Bond strength of steel bars in steel-fibre-reinforced normal and self-compacting concretes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pull-out tests were conducted to assess the bond stresses between two different sizes of steel bars and normal concrete (NC) and self-compacting concrete (SCC) with and without steel fibres (SFs), considering different conditions. The results showed that the pull-out capacities of the pre-cracked specimens were reduced by 20.4% when compared with uncracked specimens. Moreover, the pre-cracked NC specimens exhibited 10% lower tensile strength than their SCC counterparts. In addition, the specimens with SF had a higher bond stress than those without SF. Additionally, an increase in bar diameter from 12 mm to 16 mm led to a 22% improvement in bond stress. In summary, the addition of SFs to concrete generally enhanced the bond stress between the rebars and the concrete, with macro SFs exhibiting a particularly notable effect, leading to an 18% increase in bond. ACI 318-19 was found to produce conservative results of the developed steel bar length with safety margins of 120% and 79% for regular and pre-cracked specimens when compared with the expressions proposed in this work. Comparing available test results with the proposed models, the test results were very close to or more than the proposed models' results, depending on the bar diameter.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".