MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236097927 · doi:10.1139/l11-066

Seismic performance of exterior beam–column joints reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer bars and stirrups

2011· article· en· W2236097927 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed Hasaballa, Amr El-Ragaby, Ehab El-Salakawy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticReinforcementStructural engineeringBeam (structure)Materials scienceReinforced concreteJoint (building)Tension (geology)Composite materialCompression (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete beams, slabs and recently columns reinforced with fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) reinforcements have shown considerable deformability under monotonic and fatigue loading. However, concerns still remain regarding the ability of FRP – reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures to dissipate energy in seismic loading events due to the elastic-linear behaviour of the FRP reinforcement. Furthermore, the behaviour of FRP bars in RC elements subjected to tension–compression reversals has not been well investigated yet. Therefore, this experimental study aims to investigate the feasibility of using glass FRP (GFRP) reinforcements in such structures. Four full-scale exterior T-shaped beam–column joint prototypes were constructed and tested under simulated seismic loading. The test parameters included the type of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement as well as the detailing of beam longitudinal reinforcement. The experimental results showed that under seismic-type loading, beam–column joints reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups sustained more than 3.0% story drift ratio safely with no considerable damage.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.156 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207