MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066954000 · doi:10.1080/13632460109350388

SEISMIC REHABILITATION OF BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS USING FRP LAMINATES

2001· article· en· W2066954000 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ghobarah, Aly Said

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earthquake Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringFibre-reinforced plasticColumn (typography)Beam (structure)Joint (building)Earthquake resistant structuresSeismic analysisMaterials scienceEngineeringGeologyConnection (principal bundle)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An innovative and practical technique for the seismic rehabilitation of beam-column joints using fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) is presented. The procedure is to upgrade the shear capacity of the joint and thus allow the ductile ftexural hinge to form in the beam. An experimental study is conducted in order to evaluate the performance of a full-scale reinforced concrete external beam-column joint from a moment resisting frame designed to earlier code then repaired using the proposed technique. The beam-column joint is tested under cyclic loading applied at the free end of the beam and axial column load. The suggested repair procedure was applied to the tested specimen. The composite laminate system proved to be effective in upgrading the shear capacity of the nonductile beam-column joint. Comparison between the behaviour of the specimen before and after the repair is presented. A design methodology for fibre jacketing to upgrade the shear capacity of existing beam-column joints in reinforced concrete moment resisting frames is proposed.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
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

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

Citations135
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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