MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2391776250

Shear strength and behavior of circular concrete members reinforced with FRP bars and spirals = Étude du comportement et de la résistance à l’effort tranchant d'éléments circulaires en béton armé de barres longitudinales et de spirales en matériaux composites de PRF

2016· article· fr· W2391776250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed M. Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticReinforced concreteServiceability (structure)Structural engineeringFenderEngineeringFormwork
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : Circular reinforced concrete (RC) members are often used in civil engineering structures, for instance, as piers and piles in bridge substructures. Also, their applications are frequently utilized as a fender and piling system for harsh water front and marine environments. Such members are usually reinforced with conventional steel bars and stirrups. Corrosion of steel reinforcement constitutes one of the major problems that shorten the lifetime serviceability and, hence, brittle failure of many concrete structures worldwide. In the last decade, the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials has been growing to solve some of these problems and increase the anticipated service life of RC structures, such as bridges, parking garages, tunnels, and marine structures. Recently, the use of FRP bars in soft-eyes, which are openings in retaining walls that will be pierced by tunnel boring machines (TBMs), is gaining popularity in the field of tunnel excavation. In recent years, the shear behavior of RC members reinforced with FRP bars has been the focus of many studies. Accordingly, several codes and design guidelines are available for the design of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars under shear loads. These codes and design guidelines were developed based on experimental work on rectangular concrete members reinforced with FRP bars and stirrups. Yet, no research seems to have assessed circular concrete members reinforced with FRP bars and spirals under shear loads. In this research study, an experimental program was designed to investigate the shear behavior of circular members reinforced with glass FRP (GFRP) and carbon FRP (CFRP) bars, and spirals. A total of twenty full-scale circular RC specimens, with a total length 3,000 mm and 500 mm in diameter, were fabricated and tested experimentally under shear load. The specimens were divided to five series; series I contains two reference steel-RC specimens with and without spiral reinforcement. Series II contains three specimens internally reinforced with GFRP longitudinal bars and without spiral reinforcement. Series III contains five specimens reinforced with GFRP longitudinal bars and spirals (Type I). Series IV includes six specimens reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals (Type II), while series V includes four specimens totally reinforced with CFRP reinforcement. The experimental tests were performed at the structural laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sherbrooke. The main objective of testing these specimens is to investigate the behavior of circular concrete members reinforced with GFRP or CFRP longitudinal bars and transverse spirals reinforcement. Several parameters have been studied; type of reinforcement, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, shear reinforcement ratio (spiral diameter and spacing), and shear-span-to-depth ratio. The test results of the tested specimens were presented and discussed in terms of load deflection response, crack patterns and modes of failure, ultimate shear capacities, concrete, longitudinal, and…

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete→French-language works237,207→