MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386200212 · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02433

Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams subjected to torsional load using ferrocement

2023· article· en· W4386200212 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah M. Alzabidi, Ghada Diaa, Aref A. Abadel, Khaled Sennah, Hany Abdalla

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Construction Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCairo UniversityKing Saud University
KeywordsFerrocementMaterials scienceStructural engineeringBrittlenessComposite materialUltimate loadToughnessTorsion (gastropod)CrackingFlexural strengthReinforcementDeflection (physics)Reinforced concreteEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent exploration has focused on repairing and strengthen reinforced concrete (RC) beams subjected to torsional loading through various techniques. However, limited attention has been given to enhancing RC beams against torsional loading using ferrocement, resulting in inadequate evidence to illustrate its benefits. Torsional failure, a brittle and undesirable type of failure, is especially problematic in earthquake-prone regions. This paper presents an experimental study that evaluates the behavior of RC beams repaired with ferrocement when subjected to pure torsion. The study included testing six RC beams with identical cross-sectional dimensions (150 × 350 mm) and a total span of 1400 mm. The beams were divided into three segments, with a 1000 mm experimental region and two cantilever sections (200 mm wide and 350 mm long) that were extensively reinforced to prevent early failure during testing. Two primary factors were investigated: the effect of ferrocement configuration and the number of layers in the ferrocement reinforcing mesh. The tested beams provided insights into cracking, ultimate torques, rotation angles, toughness, and failure patterns. Experimental results revealed that the proposed ferrocement repair techniques unevenly enhanced the ultimate load-carrying capacity of the repaired beams, excluding U-jacket wrapping. Particularly effective was full wrapping with dual-layer wire mesh, increasing capacity by 28% compared to control beams. Using strip wrapping ferrocement with two mesh layers improved load-carrying capacity by 10% compared to control beams, while strip wrapping with one layer increased capacity by 6%. Ultimately, increasing the number of layers in the ferrocement reinforcement mesh led to an escalation in ultimate torsional capacity. This study confirms the potential of ferrocement as a strengthening method and emphasizes the significance of optimal repair configurations.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Construction MaterialsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207