MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990773797 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v6-n2-152-165

An experimental study on alternative CFRP retrofitting applications of heritage structures

2011· article· en· W1990773797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Necdet Torunbalcı, E. Onar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingConstruction engineeringArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringForensic engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is crucial for masonry structures of historical value to increase their seismic performances in order to be protected against earthquakes. The damages to the masonry structures might be attributed to insuffi cient soil properties, non-conformity with relevant regulations, design and application defects and wear. This study experimentally investigates the strengthening of the masonry structures on one side as historical structural walls can only be strengthened on one side in most cases. In the experimental works conducted within the scope of the study, the brick wall specimens, some of which are pre-damaged, are strengthened on one side using carbon fi bre reinforced polymers (CFRPs) in different forms. Comparisons are made between the change in the load-bearing capacities and behaviours of the specimens following the strengthening. It is determined that the brick wall specimens without reinforcement exhibit brittle behaviour, whereas the performances of the brick wall specimens strengthened with CFRP improve in strength ratings as well as energy dissipation capacities. The improvements in the specimens of the structural brick walls become much more outstanding when the strengthening is applied on the overall surface of the wall in textile form rather than in strip form.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207