MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flexural Behavior of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Masonry Beams

2010· article· en· W2154183362 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Galal, Munir Alp Enginsal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMasonryMaterials scienceFlexural strengthReinforcementStructural engineeringComposite materialRodBendingShear (geology)Reinforced concreteBeam (structure)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental and analytical study is conducted in order to investigate the flexural behavior of masonry beams that are internally reinforced using glass fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP) rebars. Seven reinforced masonry beams with 4.0- and 2.4-m spans were tested under four-point bending setup. The beams were loaded monotonically up to failure. One had two courses of hollow concrete masonry units and the remaining six beams had three courses. Two masonry beams were reinforced using conventional steel rebars and were considered as the control specimens. The remaining five beams were internally reinforced using GFRP rods with different reinforcement ratios. Beams were detailed to have sufficient shear reinforcement such that they do not fail in shear. Flexural capacity, deformation, curvature, and strains of the tested GFRP-reinforced and steel-reinforced masonry beams were compared and discussed. Using the acquired data from the experimental and analytical studies, effectiveness of GFRP rods as internal reinforcement for concrete masonry beams is demonstrated.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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