MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206976949 · doi:10.1155/2022/7725025

Shear Strengthening of RC Beams with FRP Composites: Database of FE Simulations and Analysis of Studied Parameters

2022· article· en· W4206976949 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirali Abbasi, Omar Chaallal, Georges El-Saikaly

Bibliographic record

VenueModelling and Simulation in Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceFinite element methodBrittlenessShear (geology)Structural engineeringComposite materialParametric statisticsReinforced concreteEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of externally bonded fiber-reinforced polymer (EB-FRP) composites for shear strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams presents many challenges given the complex phenomena that come into play. Premature bond failure, the behavior of the interface layer between FRP composites and the concrete substrate, the complex and brittle nature of shear cracks, and the adverse interaction between internal steel stirrups and EB-FRP are some of these phenomena. Compared to experimental investigations, the finite element (FE) technique provides an accurate, cost-effective, and less time-consuming tool, enabling practicing engineers to perform efficient, accurate nonlinear and dynamic analysis as well as parametric studies on RC beams strengthened with EB-FRP. Since 1996, many numerical studies have been carried out on the response of RC beams strengthened using FRP. However, only a few have been related to RC beams strengthened in shear using EB-FRP composites. In addition, the analytical models that have been reported so far have failed to address and encompass all the factors affecting the contribution of EB-FRP to shear resistance because they have mostly been based on experimental studies with limited scopes. The aim of this paper is to build an extensive database of all the studies using finite element analysis (FEA) carried out on RC beams strengthened in shear with EB-FRP composites and to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses through various studied parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModelling and Simulation in EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207