MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995477412 · doi:10.1139/l00-009

Long-term deflection prediction of concrete members reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer bars

2000· article· en· W1995477412 on OpenAlex
Tara Hall, Amin Ghali

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticDeflection (physics)Materials scienceReinforced concreteStructural engineeringReinforcementCreepComposite materialShrinkageGlass fiberBeam (structure)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of the long-term deflection behaviour of concrete shallow beams reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. The long-term deflections of the GFRP-reinforced beams are compared to deflections of identical beams reinforced with steel bars. All beams were under sustained loading for approximately 8 months. The variables were the level of sustained loading and the reinforcement materials: steel or GFRP. The experimental immediate and long-term deflections of both the steel- and the GFRP-reinforced beams were compared to calculated deflections using the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and the ACI 318-95 code using the recommendations of ACI Committee 209; these references are for steel reinforced concrete members. The test results indicate that under similar loading conditions and the same reinforcement ratio, the GFRP-reinforced beams had long-term deflections, due to creep and shrinkage, 1.7 times greater than those of the steel-reinforced beams. A comparison of the theoretical and experimental immediate and long-term deflections indicates that the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 gives reasonable predictions for all beams, and that the ACI 318-95 code, using the ACI Committee 209 recommendations, overestimates the deflections due to the combined effects of creep and shrinkage.Key words: glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP), steel, reinforced concrete, long-term, deflections, flexure, elastic modulus.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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