MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901062920 · doi:10.18552/2016/scmt4s306

Performance of FRCM Strengthened RC Beams Subject to Fatigue

2016· article· en· W2901062920 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Pino, Houman Akbari Hadad, Francisco De Caso, Antonio Nanni, Usama Ebead

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable construction materials and technologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringSubject (documents)Fatigue testingMaterials scienceComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fabric reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) is a relatively new material system recently developed for the repair, retrofit, and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete (RC) and masonry structures. Concrete structures such as bridges experience high traffic volumes and varying vehicle axle weights causing repeated cyclic loading throughout their lifetime. Cyclic loading may cause damage to the structure, a phenomenon known as fatigue. Due to the novelty of FRCM technology, there is a lack of research regarding the long-term performance of FRCM systems for RC strengthening. This study aims to investigate experimentally the parameters that most influence the flexural fatigue performance of Polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole (PBO) FRCM strengthened RC beams. For members subject to cyclic loading, a stress ratio vs. the number of cycles (S-N) curve is developed with the objective of defining the endurance limit of the strengthened beams. Failure mode and fatigue life of the beams during cyclic loading are investigated and discussed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable construction materials and technologiesSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207