MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904547144 · doi:10.18552/2016/scmt4s270

Performance of Corrosion-Aged Reinforced Concrete (RC) Beams Rehabilitated with Fabric-Reinforced Cementitious Matrix (FRCM)

2016· article· en· W2904547144 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Elghazy, Usama Ebead, Antoni Nanni

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable construction materials and technologies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersQatar National Research FundFonds National de la Recherche LuxembourgQatar Foundation
KeywordsMaterials scienceCorrosionDuctility (Earth science)Beam (structure)Composite materialFlexural strengthStructural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthReinforced concreteSTRIPSCementitiousYield (engineering)CementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the feasibility of using fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) systems to rehabilitate corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Seven large-scale RC beams were constructed and tested to failure under four-point load configuration. Six beams were subjected to an accelerated corrosion process for 70 days to obtain an estimated mass loss of 10% in the tensile steel reinforcing bars. One virgin beam and one corroded unrepaired beam were used as benchmarks for comparison purpose. The other five corroded beams were repaired before applying the FRCM system. The test parameters included the number of fabric plies (1, 2, and 4) and the strengthening schemes (endanchored bottom flexural strips and fully U-wrapped flexural strips). Test results showed that corrosion insignificantly reduced the yield and the ultimate strength of the specimen. However, the corroded specimen failed to meet the provisions of the ACI 318 code for crack width criteria. The use of FRCM increased the ultimate capacity of corroded beams between 6% and 46% and their yield strength up to 20% in comparison with those of the control virgin beam. The specimens repaired with U-wrapped FRCM strips showed higher capacity and higher ductility than those repaired with the end-anchored bottom strips having similar number of layers. A higher gain in the flexural capacity and a lower ductility index were reported for specimens with higher amount of FRCM layers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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