MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Slender Steel Columns Strengthened Using High-Modulus CFRP Plates for Buckling Control

2009· article· en· W2145007768 on OpenAlexafffund
Amr Shaat, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBucklingFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceStructural engineeringStiffnessComposite materialFailure mode and effects analysisReinforcementUltimate loadModulusColumn (typography)Ultimate failureUltimate tensile strengthFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation into the behavior of slender steel columns strengthened using high-modulus (313GPa), carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) plates. Eighteen slender hollow structural section square column specimens, 44×44×3.2mm, were concentrically loaded to failure. The effectiveness of CFRP was evaluated for different slenderness ratios (kL∕r), namely, 46, 70, and 93. The maximum increases in ultimate load ranged from 6 to 71% and axial stiffness ranged from 10 to 17%, respectively, depending on kL∕r. As kL∕r reduced, the effectiveness of CFRP plates also reduced, and failure mode changed from CFRP plate crushing after occurrence of overall buckling, to debonding prior to, or just at, buckling. A simplified analytical model is proposed to predict the ultimate axial load of FRP-strengthened slender steel columns, based on the ANSI/AISC 360-05 provisions, which were modified to account for the transformed section properties and a failure criteria of FRP derived from the experimental results. It was shown that for a given FRP reinforcement ratio, there is a critical kL∕r at the low end, below which FRP may not enhance the strength of the column.

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 score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations119
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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