MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance of Concrete-Filled FRP Tubes under Field Close-in Blast Loading

2014· article· en· W2024270643 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineeringMaterials scienceFormworkReinforcementReinforced concreteRetrofittingComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blasts, whether deliberate or accidental, are a great concern for a society’s critical infrastructure as well as expeditionary military installations. Improvement to existing construction methods that enhance blast resilience can ultimately save lives and property. Concrete-filled FRP tubes (CFFTs) are known to improve a conventional reinforced concrete member’s resistance to traditional loads by strengthening, protecting, and confining the reinforced concrete core. Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) tubes are readily available in a variety of sizes suitable for use as a stay-in-place structural formwork for midsized reinforced concrete members, which can simplify and expedite construction. These advantages point to CFFTs’ great potential in resisting blast loads. This study aimed to quantify the advantages of encasing a reinforced concrete member with a GFRP tube subjected to close-in blast loading and to investigate the effects of the presence of the tube, the internal steel reinforcement ratio, and the blast scaled distance on CFFTs’ behavior under blast loading. This was accomplished by testing four CFFT and reinforced concrete specimen pairs under blast and monotonic loading. The specimens were tested in pairs to facilitate comparisons. The CFFT specimens performed significantly better than the conventional reinforced specimens, showing greater robustness with decreased localized damage and reduced residual displacements. This indicated the need for developing analysis and design procedures for this system. Therefore, a procedure for developing Pressure-Impulse diagrams for the tested CFFT specimens was outlined and their use for the design of CFFTs under close-in blast loads was explained. A numerical procedure for developing equivalent close-in blast forcing functions was also outlined.

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 score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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