MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390021635 · doi:10.1061/jbenf2.beeng-6170

Softened Membrane Torsional Model for GFRP–Reinforced Concrete Bridge Box Girders

2023· article· en· W4390021635 on OpenAlexaff
I. Mostafa, Salaheldin Mousa, Hamdy M. Mohamed, Brahim Benmokrane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineeringGirderReinforcementMaterials scienceSpiral (railway)Torsion (gastropod)Box girderCrackingComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the experimental and analytical torsional behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) bridge box girders reinforced with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars and continuous spiral stirrups, representing a first in literature. Reinforced concrete box girders were constructed and examined until failure to assess the influence of the spiral pitch and web reinforcement configuration on torsional behavior and strength. The test specimens had continuous GFRP spirals and tie stirrups; the control specimen did not have web reinforcement. The specimens were 4,000 mm long, 380 mm wide, and 380 mm high, and had a wall thickness of 100 mm. The test results demonstrate that the box girder with spiral GFRP reinforcement achieved higher torsional strength and lower twist than its counterpart specimen reinforced with individual GFRP tie stirrups by approximately 6% and 11%, respectively. The specimen with a narrow spiral pitch performed better than the specimens with a wide spiral pitch. An analytical iterative softened membrane model for torsion (SMMT) was used to estimate the entire torsional behavior of box girders with spiral GFRP reinforcement. The analytical results were compared with the experimental results of four bridge box girders with spiral GFRP reinforcement to validate the model's accuracy. The comparison indicates that the model could reasonably predict the cracking and ultimate torsional strength as well as the associated twists.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207