Performance of precracked prestressed beams repaired with CFRP composites under bending loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding of the efficacy of fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites in repairing precracked concrete beams prestressed with unbonded tendons (UPC beams) is still very limited. The aim of this study was to provide insights into this knowledge gap. The performance of precracked UPC beams repaired with externally bonded (EB) carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates and U-wrapped anchorages was investigated experimentally. The test results indicated that the effect of the EB CFRP repairing systems was significant only after the crack reopening. The EB CFRP system aided in controlling cracks and mitigating the deterioration in beam stiffness. Consequently, the functionality of precracked UPC beams was restored and their performance was significantly improved. Compared with an intact beam (without precracks), the bending crack widths of precracked beams repaired with EB CFRP decreased by up to 61%; moreover, their deformability and ultimate loading resistance increase by up to 22% and 19%, respectively. The U-wrapped anchorages effectively averted the premature EB CFRP debonding and better leveraged the advantages of EB CFRP laminates, thereby increasing the ultimate loading resistance of precracked beams by 24% compared with the intact beam. A calculation method for determining the flexural resistance of precracked UPC beams strengthened with FRP laminates is introduced, considering the impacts of precracking and U-wrapped anchorages.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".