MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic Performance of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Columns

2015· article· en· W2212572878 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Ali, Ehab El-Salakawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStirrupFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceDuctility (Earth science)Structural engineeringComposite materialColumn (typography)Reinforced concreteReinforcementReinforced concrete columnShear (geology)CreepEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an assessment of the seismic performance of concrete columns internally reinforced with glass-fiber-reinforced polymers (GFRP) bars. Eight full-scale column prototypes with 1,650-mm shear span and 350-mm square cross-section were constructed and tested under combined lateral cyclic quasi-static and constant axial loading. The test specimens represent the lower portion of first-story columns between the footing and the contra-flexure point. The test parameters included longitudinal reinforcement type and ratio, level of axial load, and stirrup spacing. Test results showed that the drift capacity of GFRP-reinforced concrete (RC) rectangular columns at failure ranged between 8.5 and 12.5%, which exceeds the limitations of North American building codes. This indicates that the deformability of GFRP-RC column prototypes successfully replaced the ductility in steel–RC columns in dissipating the seismic energy in the presence of constant axial load. Furthermore, there was insignificant strength degradation before failure due to the well-confined concrete core.

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 score0.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations141
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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