MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cyclic Flexure Tests of Masonry Walls Reinforced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets

2003· article· en· W2069323770 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc D. Kuzik, Alaa E. Elwi, J. J. Roger Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticComposite materialMasonryReinforcementFlexural strengthStiffnessDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringBendingGlass fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research work reported here investigates the out-of-plane flexural behavior of masonry walls reinforced externally with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets and subjected to cyclic loading. A full-scale test program consisting of eight wall specimens was conducted. Nine tests were performed, in which three parameters were studied. These included the level of compressive axial load, amount of internal steel reinforcement, and amount of externally bonded GFRP sheet reinforcement. Of the three parameters studied, varying the amount of GFRP sheets was the only parameter that significantly affected the behavior of the walls. The GFRP sheet reinforcement governed the linear response of the bending moment versus centerline deflection hysteresis. Increasing or decreasing the amount of GFRP sheet reinforcement either increased or decreased both the wall stiffness and the ultimate strength, respectively. Except for visible cracks, the walls maintained their structural integrity throughout the out-of-plane cyclic loading. The unloading/reloading paths for successive loading cycles were similar, indicating little degradation. Thus, the general behavior of the walls was very predictable. The system, therefore, could be used to advantageously rehabilitate older masonry structures that are inadequately reinforced to withstand seismic events. A simple model of the behavior is also presented to allow for the evaluation of the strength and deformation characteristics of these elements.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations69
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207