An experimental study on alternative CFRP retrofitting applications of heritage structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".