MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Study of Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Confined with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers

2010· article· en· W1975453167 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chuanrong Cui, Shamim A. Sheikh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceDuctility (Earth science)Composite materialStiffnessCompression (physics)Structural engineeringCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experimental program reported here was conducted to gain insight into the behavior of concrete confined with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs). A total of 112 cylindrical concrete specimens, each 150 mm in diameter, 300 mm in height, and concrete strength up to 112 MPa, were tested under monotonic uniaxial compression. Test variables included amount of FRP, strength and stiffness of FRP, concrete strength, and the health of concrete at the time of strengthening. Results showed that, with an increase of the unconfined concrete strength, the strength enhancement, energy absorption capacity, ductility factor, and work (energy) index at rupture of FRP jackets all decreased remarkably. A positive correlation was found between concrete ductility and FRP rupture strain. A gradual post-peak failure of the specimens, observed previously from FRP-confined concrete columns tested at the University of Toronto, was also observed in some of the current tests. This ductile failure, attributed to the gradual unzipping failure of FRP jacket, is related to specimen size and is explained in terms of various confinement parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations191
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207