MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121106230 · doi:10.31272/jeasd.25.1.2

FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF NORMAL AND HIGH STRENGTH CONTINUOUS BEAMS REINFORCED BY GFRP BARS

2021· article· en· W3121106230 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muayad M. Abdullah, Hassan F. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering and Sustainable Development · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcementFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceFlexural strengthComposite materialDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringUltimate tensile strengthReinforced concreteGlass fiberUltimate loadSpan (engineering)Compressive strengthFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the reinforced concrete structures, fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) has been considered an alternative material to steel reinforcement with the advantages of corrosion resistance, non-conductivity, and high strength to weight ratio. This work is devoted to study the flexural behavior of normal and high strength concrete continuous beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) bars. Ten continuous beams, with dimensions 150 mm wide × 250 mm deep × 2300 mm long consisting of two equal spans were investigated in this study. The beams were divided into three groups according to the compressive strength of concrete (30, 50 and 70) MPa. Each group consists of three beams with different longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρfmin, ρfb and 1.5ρfb; where ρfmin and ρfb are the reinforcement ratio at a minimum and balanced condition, respectively). The ultimate load, mid-span deflection, cracks size, concrete strains, GFRP reinforcement strains of the tested beams were verified and contrasted. The experimental results indicate that the increase in the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases the ultimate load by 125% and decreases the crack size and mid-span deflection by 78% and 57%, respectively. The experimental data were compared with the proposed ACI 440.1R-15 and CSA S806-12 equations. the ultimate load were greater than the calculated results according to (ACI 440.1R-15) by (20%) for beams with (ρmin), while beams with (ρb and 1.5ρb) the ultimate load were less than the calculated results by (9%), cracks size were close to the results according to (ACI 440.1R-15) for normal strength beams, while for high strength beams results were less than the results according to (ACI 440.1R-15), while ISIS-Canada 07 showed good agreement for all tested beams.

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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering and Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207