MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079436671 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2012-0506

Design for fire of concrete elements strengthened or reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer: state of the art and opportunities from performance-based approaches

2013· article· en· W2079436671 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luke Bisby, Tim Stratford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticFire resistanceReinforcementFire safetyFire performanceFire protectionReinforced concreteConcrete coverStructural engineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen widespread success applying fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials for internal reinforcement and externally bonded strengthening of concrete structures. However, considerable reductions in mechanical and bond properties of FRP materials at elevated temperatures continue to hinder their application in buildings, where structural fire-resistance ratings are typically required. To meet currently imposed fire safety requirements, FRP materials often require supplemental fire protection insulation or thick concrete cover to maintain their temperature below an assumed (though not currently well-defined) “critical” value during an assumed standard fire exposure. Such requirements are based on a definition of structural fire resistance that is rooted in a prescriptive framework and that fails to take advantage of the state of the art in performance-based structural design for fire safety. This paper is intended to present a summary of the state of the art in this area and also to demonstrate clear opportunities for internal FRP reinforcement and external FRP strengthening of concrete elements that may arise from taking a performance-based fire safety design approach.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207