MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tensile Lap Splicing of Bundled CFRP Reinforcing Bars in Concrete

2006· article· en· W2006992253 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPultrall
KeywordsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringBar (unit)Fibre-reinforced plasticUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialspliceFlexural strengthStress (linguistics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the case of heavily reinforced concrete structural members, bundled bars are required rather than spaced bars. The use of spliced bundled bars is necessary when available bar lengths are limited. No design recommendations regarding the use of bundled or spliced bundled FRP bars are available. The results of four-point flexural testing of nine concrete beams reinforced with spliced bundled CFRP bars are presented herein. The effects of the type of bundle and splice length on the bond strength of bundled CFRP bars are investigated. Based on the experimental results, a procedure for determining the critical splice length of FRP bars is presented and the corresponding values of bond stresses can be predicted. Moreover, the ultimate strength analysis method is used to predict the maximum stress in spliced bundled CFRP bars. Finally, comparisons with the existing recommendations regarding the use of bundled steel bars and the recommended modifications for bundled CFRP bars are presented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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