MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation by Hybrid Simulation of Earthquake-Damaged RC Walls Repaired for In-Plane Bending with Single-Sided CFRP Sheets

2020· article· en· W3090112432 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua E. Woods, David T. Lau, Jeffrey Erochko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringShear wallCarbon fiber reinforced polymerDissipationDuctility (Earth science)StiffnessBending momentFibre-reinforced plasticShear (geology)BendingComposite materialReinforced concreteEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The realistic seismic response of two damaged reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls repaired using externally bonded carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets was evaluated using hybrid simulation. The CFRP repair used horizontal and vertical CFRP layers applied to a single side of the wall that were anchored with a steel tube anchor system and CFRP fan anchors. The objective of the CFRP repair was to restore the initial stiffness and restore or increase the strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of the damaged walls. Hybrid simulation was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the repair strategy under real earthquake ground motion records with realistic boundary conditions, including the effects of axial load, shear force, and overturning moment. The results show that the single-sided application of the CFRP sheets restored the seismic performance of the damaged RC shear walls tested in this study. Hybrid simulation is shown to be an efficient test method to experimentally study the seismic response of a structural component with realistic boundary conditions over a range of earthquake hazard levels.

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 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207