MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253582960 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14653683

Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Mechanically Bonded Steel Plates

2021· preprint· en· W4253582960 on OpenAlexaff
Syed Ali Kashif

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringFlexural strengthMaterials scienceBeam (structure)Composite numberWeldingEpoxyDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steel plate bonding technology is widely accepted for the strengthening of reinforced concrete structures. Researches in the past showed that epoxy bonded steel plated composite beams are highly prone to variation in temperature and environmental conditions. This research study introduces a novel approach to steel plate composite beam in which bond between the concrete and the steel plate is provided by welding the steel plate to the legs of the uniformly spaced stirrups. Experimental investigation showed that the parameters such as interface connections, geometric dimensions, stirrups spacing and thickness of steel plate have a great influence on the strength, deformation and failure characteristics of such composite beams. A finite element model has been developed using commercial software, ABAQUS, to predict the strength of such composite beams and its performance is validated through experimental results. The direct finite element simulation of proposed composite beams with developed finite element model gives an average of experimental to predicted strength ratio of 0.99, which comfirms the accuracy of prediction. The finite element model is then used to simulate a large number of numerical beams with varying geometric and material properties to formulate design guidelines. Design charts are developed and their performance is validated through test results with experimental to design chart predictions giving an average value of 0.94. Design procedures for such beams are illustrated with calculated design examples. Such simple design procedures can be adopted in the actual design of proposed composite beams in practical applications.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207