Carbon fibre reinforced polymer wrapping for the rehabilitation of masonry columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) wrapping to strengthen existing cracked masonry columns was investigated experimentally. The study was aimed at quantifying the increase in strength that can be achieved and assessing the effect of column size on the strength increase. Eighteen columns were tested, with three different square cross-sectional sizes (290 mm × 290 mm, 390 mm × 390 mm, 490 mm × 490 mm) and two different types of clay masonry unit. Six columns were constructed in each size, two columns using unit type 1 and four columns using unit type 2. Strengthening was achieved by wrapping the square section columns directly with a single-layer CFRP laminate or by wrapping the columns after first casting a circular concrete jacket around the column. The latter treatment was applied to two of the small-sized columns and two of the intermediate-sized columns. All other square section columns were wrapped directly. Significant strength increases were achieved, particularly when the columns were provided with the cylindrical concrete jacket. These preliminary tests indicate that the use of CFRP wrapping is an effective technique for rehabilitating damaged masonry columns. Decisive conclusions could not be made regarding the effect of column size (cross-sectional area) on the strength increase achieved. Further tests together with nonlinear finite element modelling aimed at duplicating the experimental observations would greatly enhance the information provided by the current tests.Key words: masonry, columns, rehabilitation, strengthening, fibre reinforced polymer, experimental.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".