MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280565334 · doi:10.1002/fam.3071

Load ratio effects on the structural fire behaviour of glass fibre‐reinforced polymer‐reinforced concrete beams with mid‐span bar lap splices – Experimental study

2022· article· en· W4280565334 on OpenAlexafffund
Sobita Gurung, Osama Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueFire and Materials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceStructural engineeringBeam (structure)Span (engineering)CrackingComposite materialUltimate loadReinforced concreteSteel barGlass fiberFinite element methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fibre‐reinforced polymer (FRP)‐reinforced concrete members have been gaining attention as an alternative to conventional steel‐reinforced concrete members due to their advantageous characteristics. A few to mention are excellent resistance to corrosion, high strength‐to‐weight ratio, and reduced maintenance cost in the long term. Nevertheless, FRPs are often limited in use mainly due to fire safety considerations since they can encounter significant deprivation of strength and bond with concrete in fire conditions. This paper presents the results of an experimental study aimed to investigate the effects of the applied load level on the structural behaviour of glass fibre‐reinforced polymer (GFRP)‐reinforced concrete beams having mid‐span bar lap splices when exposed to standard fire. Two 2750‐mm long beams with cross‐sectional dimensions of 300 mm wide × 350 mm high were exposed to elevated temperatures that followed the CAN/ULC‐S101 standard fire time–temperature curve while being subjected to a load level equivalent to 85% of the beam ultimate design load. The experimental results of the two beams were compared to those obtained for identical beams but subjected to a lower load level that is equivalent to only 40% of the beam's ultimate design load. Results show that the increased load level (slightly more than double the load ratio) unexpectedly did not impact the fire resistance time of the GFRP‐reinforced concrete beams but affected other structural responses of the beam, such as its midspan deflections and cracking patterns.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire and MaterialsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207