Out-of-Plane Flexural Performance of GFRP-Reinforced Masonry Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to assess the out-of-plane flexural performance of masonry walls that are reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRPs) rods, as an alternative for steel rebars. Eight 1 m×3 m full-scale walls were constructed using hollow concrete masonry units and tested in four-point bending with an effective span of 2.4 m between the supports. The walls were tested when subjected to increasing monotonic loads up to failure. The applied loads would represent out-of-plane loads arising from wind, soil pressure, or inertia force during earthquakes. One wall is unreinforced; another wall is reinforced with customary steel rebars; and the other six walls are reinforced with different amounts of GFRP reinforcement. Two of the GFRP-reinforced walls were grouted only in the cells where the rods were placed to investigate the effect of grouting the empty cells. The force-deformation relationship of the walls and the associated strains in the reinforcement were monitored throughout the tests. The relative performance of different walls is assessed to quantify the effect of different design variables. The range of GFRP reinforcement ratios covered in the experiments was used to propose a capacity diagram for the design of FRP-reinforced masonry walls similar to that of reinforced concrete 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".