Predicting Crack Width in CFRP-Strengthened RC One-Way Slabs Using Hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer Neural Network Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study deploys a hybrid Grey Wolf Optimizer Neural Network Model for predicting the crack width in reinforced concrete slabs strengthened with carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP). Reinforced concrete (RC) one-way slabs (1800 × 400 × 120 mm in size) were strengthened with CFRP with various lengths (1800, 1100, and 700 mm) and subjected to four-point bending. The experimental results were compared to corresponding values for conventional RC slabs. The observed crack width results were recorded, and subsequently examined against the expression recommended by Eurocode 2. To estimate the crack width of CFRP-reinforced slabs, ANN combined with the Grey Wolf Optimizer algorithm was employed whereby the applied load, CFRP width/length, X/Y crack positions, and stress in steel reinforcement and concrete were defined as the input parameters. Experimental results showed that the larger the length and width of the carbon fiber, the smaller the maximum crack width in the tensile area of the slab at the final load step. On average, the crack width in slabs retrofitted with CFRP laminates increased by around 80% compared to a slab without CFRP. The results confirm that the equation provided by Eurocode 2 provides an unconservative estimation of crack widths for RC slabs strengthened with CFRP laminates. On the other hand, the results also confirm that the proposed informational model could be used as a reliable tool for estimating the crack width in RC slabs. The findings provide valuable insight into the design approaches for RC slabs and rehabilitation strategies for existing deficient RC slabs using CFRP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".