STR-947: COLUMN RETROFIT BY PLASTIC HINGE RELOCATION USING ADVANCED COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced composite materials composed of carbon and glass fiber reinforced polymers, have been used to retrofit reinforced concrete columns for over two-decades. The original testing of these systems started in the late 1980’s and continues to the present day. The first tests, performed at the University of California at San Diego under the guidance of Professor Nigel Priestley, were focused on the use of unidirectional composites that were oriented in the transverse direction. The goal of many of the these tests was to essentially supplement the existing transverse reinforcement in order to change what would have been a premature shear failure into a flexural, ductile mode of failure. Effectively, these tests were forcing the columns to fail in the upper and/or lower hinge regions, while increasing the displacement ductility and preventing premature shear or lap splice failure (Paulay and Priestley 1992; Priestley et al. 1996). Similar testing was then performed at various universities (e.g. University of California at Irvine, University of Nevada, Reno, University of Southern California, University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand and the University of Toronto) in order to validate both the glass and the carbon fiber reinforced polymers for this type of application. The structural testing then turned to the validation of these advanced composites to provide the same performance on noncircular columns, including rectangular, diamond, flare and even square shapes with re-entrant corners. Some of these column cross sections require the use of advanced composite anchors in order to achieve the same performance goals. All of these tests concluded that once the longitudinal steel had buckled or fractured, the column repair was no longer feasible. This is due to the fact that inelastic strain capacity of the buckled bars is severely diminished.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".