MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187604632 · doi:10.21838/uhpc.2016.80

Flexural failure modes of ribbed triangular UHPFRC plates: experimental and numerical investigation

2016· article· en· W3187604632 on OpenAlexaffabout
Florent Baby, François Toutlemonde, Luca Sorelli, Pierre Marchand, Sébastien Bernardi, Thomas Guénet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexural strengthMaterials scienceStructural engineeringFiber-reinforced concreteReinforced concreteCrackingComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thin UHPFRC plates stiffened by reinforced ribs represent a promising use of UHPFRC as demonstrated in some outstanding applications. Optimization of the ribs reinforcement and of the UHPFRC fibre ratio, which has significant economic and technical relevance, is critically related to guaranteeing ductile failure modes of such structures and components, including effects of the scatter of local material properties and post-cracking fibre contribution. A micromechanical model based on the fibre pull-out mechanism and explicitly accounting for fibre orientation and spatial dispersion has been developed and its ability to support the structural design of ribbed reinforced UHPFRC structures is under validation. To this aim, flexural tests on ribbed triangular UHPFRC plates have been carried out at IFSTTAR Structures Laboratory, with LafargeHolcim as a partner, in a joint project with Laval University. The fibre content and the preferential fibre orientation related to casting process were varied, as well as the loading configuration, so that the possible structural redundancy could be checked. The results of these tests are described and numerically analysed in relation to the material properties derived from both molded samples and specimens sawn from companion plates.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207