MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310102596 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2021-0627

Structural retrofitting of impaired dapped-end beams: a review

2022· review· en· W4310102596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Supun Jayasinghe, Sithija A. Abeysinghe, H. D. Yapa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingStructural engineeringDiagonalBeam (structure)EngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geometric reduction prevailing in dapped-end concrete beams forms a disturbed region into the beam-ends. Consequently, material deterioration- and reinforcement-detailing issues prevailing in the end region cause a series of structural distresses. In this light, distresses in dapped-end beams and potential retrofitting options are reviewed in this paper. It is found that the choice of the retrofitting configuration is governed considerably by the prevailing defect. The strength enhancement could be as high as 40%–50% upon the choice of correct configuration whereas possibly be negligible upon inappropriate selection. Generally, the use of diagonal bars and plate jacketing are promising with steel applications. The bars can be prestressed to enhance the retrofitting efficiency. For fibre-reinforced polymer applications, inclined/horizontal stripping and fabric wrapping are impressive approaches, while combined systems show better results. The review also identifies the required future research for formulating comprehensive retrofitting guidelines.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207