Response to fire of concrete structures that incorporate FRP
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After more than twenty years of research investigating fibre‐reinforced polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing and strengthening concrete structures, FRPs are now widely recognized as useful materials in the ongoing struggle against infrastructure deterioration. However, applications of FRPs in the field have been limited primarily to bridges, where fire is not a primary consideration during design. Because FRP materials are combustible and susceptible to deterioration of mechanical and bond properties at only modestly elevated temperatures, there is legitimate concern that FRP reinforcing and strengthening systems for concrete will perform poorly in fire. This paper presents a review of research conducted to investigate the fire performance of FRP materials for infrastructure applications. Also presented is an overview of an ongoing research program that is currently underway at Queen's University and the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) to investigate the performance in fire of FRP‐strengthened reinforced concrete slabs, beams, and columns. This work has demonstrated that FRP strengthened concrete structures can be protected to provide sufficient fire endurance. Recommendations for future research are provided. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it