MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993845593 · doi:10.1139/l04-049

Fibre reinforced polymer composite bars for the structural concrete slabs of a Public Works and Government Services Canada parking garage

2004· article· en· W1993845593 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brahim Benmokrane, Ehab El-Salakawy, Zoubir Cherrak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticSlabStructural engineeringDeflection (physics)Flexural strengthCrackingGlass fiberBendingEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is currently undertaking the reconstruction of the interior structural slabs of the Laurier-Taché parking garage (Hull, Quebec). An agreement between PWGSC and the Université de Sherbrooke was reached to use fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement technology in some demonstration areas of the Laurier–Taché parking garage. Based on this agreement, three different designs using carbon and glass FRP bars were carried out in collaboration with the project consultant. These designs were made according to CAN/CSA-S806-02, Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre-Reinforced-Polymers. To verify the design, it was agreed to conduct laboratory testing on full-scale slab prototypes of the proposed designs. This paper presents the results of the experimental tests where six full-sized one-way slabs were constructed and tested. The slabs were 3100 mm long × 1000 mm wide × 150 mm deep and were tested under four-point bending. The test results along with a comparison to the predictions of CAN/CSA-S806-02 Code and ACI 440.1R-03 design guidelines are presented. Recommendations for design of FRP-reinforced concrete slabs are also given.Key words: concrete slabs, parking garages, FRP bars, flexural behaviour, cracking, deflection.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207