MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205524296 · doi:10.3389/fmats.2021.802249

An Experimental and Analytical Study on the Bending Performance of CFRP-Reinforced Glulam Beams

2022· article· en· W4205524296 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Materials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBamboo properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthBrittlenessBendingDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringReinforcementCarbon fiber reinforced polymerFlexural strengthUltimate loadFinite element methodFailure mode and effects analysisComposite numberEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fiber-reinforced polymer is one kind of composite material made of synthetic fiber and resin, which has attracted research interests for the reinforcement of timber elements. In this study, 18 glued-laminated (glulam) beams, unreinforced or reinforced with internally embedded carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) sheets, were tested under four-point bending loads. For the reinforced glulam beams, the influences of the strengthening ratio, the modulus of elasticity of the CFRP, and the CFRP arrangement on their bending performance were experimentally investigated. Subsequently, a finite element model developed was verified with the experimental results; furthermore, a general theoretical model considering the typical tensile failure mode was employed to predict the bending–resisting capacities of the reinforced glulam beams. It is found that the reinforced glulam beams are featured with relatively ductile bending failure, compared to the brittle tensile failure of the unreinforced ones. Besides, the compressive properties of the uppermost grain of the glulam can be fully utilized in the CFRP-reinforced beams. For the beams with a 0.040% strengthening ratio, the bending–resisting capacity and the maximum deflection can be enhanced approximately by 6.51 and 12.02%, respectively. The difference between the experimental results and the numerical results and that between the experimental results and analytical results are within 20 and 10%, respectively.

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.

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 score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.237
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