MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988077376 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2019.10.004

Performance of perforated FRP stub beams subject to static transverse actions

2019· article· en· W2988077376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alfred Gand, Meer HM Mohammed, Slavi Jarrouj

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoventry University
KeywordsStub (electronics)Transverse planeStructural engineeringFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceEngineeringOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an experimental programme designed to investigate the failure mode and ultimate capacity of pultruded glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) cellular profiles subject to transverse loading. Presented in this study are the results of the characterisation of twenty six GFRP 152 76 6.4 mm I stub beams, 300 mm long. The beam specimens were categorised as plain for the control tests and those with circular or rectangular openings, centrally positioned. The specimens were subject to different loading configurations, noted as End Bearing with solid ground (EB), Interior Two Flange (ITF), Interior Bearing with solid base (IB) and End Two Flange (ETF). Results indicate a reduction in load-carrying capacity of the specimens with the opening when compared to the control specimens. The reduction was up to 20% for the specimens with circular openings and up to 25% for specimens with rectangular openings. The study revealed that loading configuration IB and ITF exhibit larger nonlinear behaviour and deformability than loading configurations EB and ETF. Various research has been conducted on its mechanical properties, connections, pultrusion techniques and web crippling behaviour of thin-walled GFRP section. Limited research can be found in the literature on the behaviour of pultruded GFRP beams with large perforation, subject to transverse static loadings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207