MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403461001 · doi:10.3390/buildings14103277

Shear Strengthening of RC Beams Incorporating Post-Tensioned Bars and Engineered Cementitious Composite Reinforced with Palm Fronds

2024· article· en· W4403461001 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Hamoda, Aref A. Abadel, Khaled Sennah, Mizan Ahmed, Xihong Zhang, Mohamed Emara

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringFrondMaterials scienceComposite numberShear (geology)Composite materialPalmEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates, experimentally and numerically, the shear strengthening of Normal Concrete (NC) beams using post-tensioning steel bars and Engineered Cementitious Composite (ECC) reinforced with chemically cured Palm Fronds (PFs). The benefits of strain-hardening ECC and the tensile strength of PFs cured with 6% wt Alkali NaOH solution beside post-tensioned bars have been employed herein. Seven full-scale Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams were fabricated and experimented with under three-point loading until failure. The test parameters include the strengthening technique, type, and configuration of the material used for strengthening. The strengthening process has been implemented through two techniques: Externally Bonded Reinforcement (EBR) and Near-Surface Mounted (NSM) Reinforcement. The strengthening materials have been configured and placed in horizontal, vertical, and inclined positions. The effectiveness of the strengthening methods has been evaluated by examining their cracking propagations, load-deflection responses, collapse modes, elastic stiffness, and absorbed energy. It was found that the proposed strengthening systems could significantly control the crack pattern and failure mode, and they could enhance the ultimate load amplitude up to 37% and 50% for NSM ECC with PFs and EBR post-tensioning steel bars, respectively. Nonlinear three-dimensional finite element models of the tested beams were developed and validated with the test data, where it was found that finite element models predict the structural performance of tested beams with a maximum error of only 2%.

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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207