MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023833600 · doi:10.1680/eacm.2009.162.3.167

Strengthening prestressed concrete with prestressed CFRP

2009· article· en· W2023833600 on OpenAlexafffund
Y. J. Kim, Mark F. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering and Computational Mechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringMaterials sciencePrestressed concreteFailure mode and effects analysisBeam (structure)Finite element methodComposite materialReinforced concreteBar (unit)EngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the effect of unevenly prestressed carbon-fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets used for strengthening a prestressed concrete beam (L = 3·6 m). An integrated anchor system, consisting of steel brackets and anchor plates, is used to prestress the sheets. To predict the behaviour of the CFRP sheet during a prestressing operation, a three-dimensional finite-element analysis model is built. The model includes the reinforced concrete element, structural solid element and elastic shell element to represent the concrete, anchorage and CFRP sheet respectively. The model shows good agreement with test data, including a maximum error of less than 5%. Stress concentrations in the CFRP sheet are predicted near the tip of the anchor plates. Uneven prestressing effects are observed across the CFRP sheet because of the anchor geometry and uneven bonding of the sheet in the laboratory. These effects cause uneven rupture of the sheet when the strengthened beam is flexurally loaded to failure. To avoid such a failure mode, care should be exercised when the strengthening system is prepared with adequate anchorage.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

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 head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering and Computational MechanicsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207