Restoring Strength of Reinforced Concrete Horizontally Curved Box Beam with Opening Using Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) and FRP Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is devoted to test the structural response of reinforced concrete horizontally curved box beams in presence of vertical and transverse opening restored by CFRP Laminates or Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) technique and compared to that having opening but without restoring. Six horizontally circular curved box beams were casted and tested in this experimental work, three specimens with opening in vertical direction and the other three specimens including opening in transverse direction. Accordingly, each direction has three types of beams, first one including opening without restoring and used as a reference specimen, second one with opening restored by CFRP Laminates technique and third one with opening restored by Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) technique. The test program includes the main variables; direction of opening. The beams were tested as a two-span continuous beam, each span represents a quarter circle, under the effect of two concentrated loads each load positioned at top face of midspan of the beam. The findings of the experiments showed that the use of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) and CFRP Laminates and techniques around opening notably increased the ultimate load capacity of specimens (CB2.V60.S1, CB3.V60.S2, CB5.T60.S1 and CB6.T60.S2) by about (18.5% and 15.3%,135% and 38.3%) respectively, when compared with specimens without restoring. Service mid-span deflection response not give clear effect, while service mid-span twisting was improved by about (55.28%, 13%, 10.73% and 2.37%) for all restored specimens (CB2.V60.S1, CB3.V60.S2, CB5.T60.S1 and CB6.T60.S2) respectively. Genially, significant increase in stiffness can be observed for restored specimens as a comparison with those without restoring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".