Chinese Design Recommendations for External Strengthening by FRP Laminates and Related Works in ACI and ISIS Code Provisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By comparing the Chinese CECS 146:2003, the American ACI 440.2R-02 and the Canadian ISIS Design manual No.4, discussion is extended in terms of ways to improve the performance of concrete structures. Although the Chinese code treats only carbon fibers, the basic concepts for FRP strengthening are common to all three examined design. However, safety factors differ because of the different backgrounds and application experience. The ACI 440.2R-02 goes into great detail concerning FRP materials and utilization where creep and fatigue are important factors. The ISIS manual No.4 gives many design examples and promotes the use of FRP through easy-to-use design charts. The CECS 146:2003 also mentions applications for seismic resistance. Further improvement in the area of design stipulations for use of FRP laminates will include standardization of safety factors, and also promotion of these guides for a wide use around the industry.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
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".