CFRP Strengthening of Beams in Reinforced Concrete Frames withOpenings in Shear Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Openings through reinforced concrete frame beams are often necessary to accommodate utility pipes and/or ducts.Openings in flexural members may decrease their load-carrying capacity and stiffness leading to increased deflection.This paper presents the findings of a numerical study that examined the effectiveness of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) fabric in strengthening reinforced concrete flexural members with openings.The effectiveness of different strengthening configurations in the vicinity of openings in the shear zone are evaluated by modelling nine frames and comparing the results to the 10 th (control) frame with has opening but without strengthening.The FRP fabric configurations included strengthening around the opening, inside the opening, and both around and inside the opening.In addition, for each of the configurations, the thickness of fabric layers was varied.Finite element models demonstrated that CFRP strengthening increases the ultimate load-carrying capacity and decreases deflection.However, increasing CFRP sheet thickness has little effect on the maximum load capacity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".