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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tara Hall, Amin Ghali

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.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 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

Citations48
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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