MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavior of Reinforced and Posttensioned Concrete Members with a UHPFRC Overlay under Impact Loading

2009· article· en· W2041682909 on OpenAlexafffund
Katrin Habel, Paul Gauvreau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSpallStructural engineeringOverlaySlabMaterials scienceReinforcementFlexural strengthReinforced concreteFiber-reinforced concreteTension (geology)BendingConcrete coverComposite materialCompression (physics)EngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact response of reinforced and posttensioned concrete members with ultrahigh-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) overlay was studied. This paper presents the results of nine drop weight slab strip tests. Major parameters for the tests were the reinforcement configuration of the concrete substrate, the addition of reinforcing bars in the UHPFRC layer, and the static system. Two reinforced and posttensioned concrete slabs were tested for reference. Five slab strips were tested under static loading conditions for comparison. A three-point bending and a cantilever system were used in the drop weight tests to induce flexural compression or tension in the upper UHPFRC layer. The addition of a UHPFRC overlay improved the structural response: no crushing or spalling occurred in the UHPFRC at the impact location. The UHPFRC had a load distributing function, which led to reduced crack widths in the substrate and lower member deflections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207