Flexural and shear strengthening of timber beams using glass fibre reinforced polymer bars — an experimental investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental program was undertaken at The University of Manitoba to test timber stringers strengthened with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. Various strengthening schemes were investigated as a means of increasing the load carrying capacity of timber stringers in shear and flexure. The shear strengthening was achieved by inserting GFRP dowels in the centre of the cross section along the length of the stringers. The flexural strengthening used the concept of near-surface-mounted GFRP bars. Fifty beams were tested to evaluate the performance of the various strengthening schemes. The behaviour of the beams is described in terms of mode of failure, mechanical properties, and load–deflection behaviour. This study found that strengthening timber stringers with GFRP reinforcement increased the ultimate strength of the stringers and reduced its variability. It is believed that the shear and flexural GFRP reinforcements act as a truss member within the timber beam and bridge the local defects and discontinuities of the timber.Key words: timber, glass fibre reinforced polymer, bridge, stringers, dowels, strengthening, ductility.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".