Retrofitting of Flange Notched Wood I-Joists with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prefabricated composite wood I-joists are very common in North America as a building materials for light-frame wood construction. The capacity and the failure pattern of prefabricated composite wood I-joists in the presence of a flange notch was experimentally investigated with a total of 6 specimens with various sizes and locations of notches having a span length of 6.1 m (20 feet). Test results showed that the presence of a notch reduced the capacity significantly up to 75% compared to I-joists having no flange notch depending on the size and location of the notch. The web of the control I-joists with no opening failed in flexure in the mid-span whereas the top-flange failed in compression and bottom-flange failed in tension. On the other hand, most of the I-joists with a notch failed in flexure at the notch location. The performance of flange notched I-joists retrofitted with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) plate was also investigated on another 18 specimens. After retrofit, brittle premature failure of I-joists was prevented with a significant increase in capacity up to 307% compared to the I-joists with notches was achieved. Based on the experimental results, a prediction model was developed and validated with the experimental results.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".