MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123687969 · doi:10.1177/0731684415594487

Basalt fiber reinforced polymer grids as an external reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures

2015· article· en· W2123687969 on OpenAlexaff
Nageh M. Ali, Xin Wang, Zhishen Wu, Ahmed Hassanein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasalt fiberFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceComposite materialFlexural strengthUltimate tensile strengthEpoxyBasaltSlip (aerodynamics)Young's modulusGlass fiberFiberGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents series of experimental studies on newly developed basalt fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) grids for the flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. The study includes tensile behavior of the basalt FRP grids with three types of thickness, bonding behavior between the basalt FRP grids and the concrete with epoxy resin, and flexural behavior of the reinforced concrete beams strengthened with basalt FRP grids. The results revealed that the modulus of elasticity of the basalt FRP grids ranged between 40 and 43 GPa, and their tensile strength ranged between 815 and 931 MPa. The bond stress–slip behavior of the basalt FRP grids and concrete exhibited a ductile failure manner in comparison to that of FRP sheets and concrete; the bond strength of the tested basalt FRP grids was in the range of 3.26–6.06 MPa, and its slip at peak ranged between 0.15 and 0.4 mm. Beams strengthened with basalt FRP grids failed by crushing of compressive concrete or fiber reinforced polymer rupture and no debonding failure was observed for any of the tested beams.

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 score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and CompositesSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207