MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fatigue Flexural Behavior of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Beams Repaired with CFRP Sheets

2010· article· en· W2114514103 on OpenAlexafffund
Rania Al-Hammoud, Khaled Soudki, Timothy H. Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMaterials scienceReinforcementCorrosionFlexural strengthBeam (structure)Composite materialReinforced concreteCarbon fiber reinforced polymerFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the flexural behavior of corroded steel reinforced concrete beams repaired with carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets under repeated loading. Thirty beams (152×254×2,000 mm) were constructed and tested. Fatigue flexural failure occurred in 29 of these beams. The study showed that pitting of the steel reinforcement due to corrosion occurred only after about a 7% actual mass loss which coincided with a decrease in the fatigue performance of the beam. The controlling factor for the fatigue strength of the beams is the fatigue strength of the steel bars. Repairing with CFRP sheets increased the fatigue capacity of the beams with corroded steel reinforcement beyond that of the control unrepaired beams with uncorroded steel reinforcement. Beams repaired with CFRP at a medium corrosion level and then further corroded to a high corrosion level before testing had a comparable fatigue performance to those that were repaired and tested after corroding directly to a high corrosion level.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
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

Citations89
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207