Achieving Worldwide Code Acceptance for the Use of Advanced Composite Materials to Strengthen Civil Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1990s, the use of advanced composite materials for infrastructure initiated with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as an alternative to steel jacketing bridge columns for seismic retrofit. Caltrans turned to an independent material testing facility, Aerospace Corporation, to assist in the development of the first prequalification test program for advanced composite materials in civil infrastructure, which focused on durability requirements of composite materials under various environmental conditions. After the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), formerly International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) developed an acceptance criteria (AC125) for the use of advanced composite materials to strengthen non-ductile reinforced concrete and masonry structures. The AC125 criteria was substantially influenced by structural testing at the University of California, San Diego and has been adopted by numerous countries, including New Zealand and Canada, as a preferred criterion to evaluate various composite systems. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) has also been influential in the development of guidelines for civil structures, with the first guideline published in 2002 and since adopted and referenced internationally. Other industries (e.g. water and waste water transmission) have developed their own unique requirements for durability testing and inspection. In the UK, the Concrete Society developed guidelines (TR55 & TR57) for the design, acceptance, inspection, and monitoring of composite materials, while Germany developed a general building approval program (Zulassung by DIBt), similar to ICC but requires more rigorous durability testing. These requirements have evolved over the years and will continue to change along with the associated codes and guidelines. This paper will review the various durability and materials testing requirements that have been developed, with a brief overview of the guidelines and codes being developed to allow these advanced composite materials to become more accepted for use in civil structures.
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 | 0.041 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".