Characterizing the Cracking Behavior of Large-Scale Multi-Layered Reinforced Concrete Beams by Acoustic Emission Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, acoustic emission (AE) analysis was carried out to evaluate and quantify the cracking behavior of large-scale multi-layered reinforced concrete beams under flexural tests. Four normal concrete beams were repaired by adding a layer of crumb rubberized engineered cementitious composites (CRECCs) or powder rubberized engineered cementitious composites (PRECCs), in either the tension or compression zone of the beam. Additional three unrepaired control beams, fully cast with either normal concrete, CRECCs, or PRECCs, were tested for comparison. Flexural tests were performed on all the tested beams in conjunction with AE monitoring until failure. AE raw data obtained from the flexural testing was filtered and then analyzed to detect and assess the cracking behavior of all the tested beams. A variety of AE parameters, including number of hits and cumulative signal strength, were utilized to study the crack propagation throughout the testing. Furthermore, b-value and intensity analyses were implemented and yielded additional parameters called b-value, historic index [H (t)], and severity (Sr). The analysis of the changes in the AE parameters allowed the identification of the first crack in all tested beams. Moreover, varying the rubber particle size (crumb rubber or powder rubber), repair layer location, or AE sensor location showed a significant impact on the number of hits and signal amplitude. Finally, by using the results of the study, it was possible to develop a damage quantification chart that can identify different damage stages (first crack and ultimate load) related to the intensity analysis parameters (H (t) and Sr).
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".