MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403637956 · doi:10.3390/polym16212956

A New Avrami-Based Exponential Model for Predicting Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar Service Life: A Comparison with Existing Models Using a Large Database

2024· article· en· W4403637956 on OpenAlexaff
Tuanjie Wang, A. Ghani Razaqpur, Shaoliang Chen, Shiqiang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNankai University
KeywordsService lifeMaterials scienceBar (unit)Exponential functionFiberDatabaseComposite materialComputer scienceMathematicsGeologyMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) bar is a promising solution to problems caused by steel rebar corrosion in concrete. To assess the service life of the FRP bar based on accelerated test results, it is crucial to have a reliable model. Here, a modified exponential (MEP) model is proposed based on the Avrami equation. The Avrami equation provides a theoretical foundation for the empirical exponential (EP) model and does not a priori fix the power of the exposure time to one. A database containing 903 data points from 74 groups of test specimens is assembled to compare the reliability of the MEP model vis-a-vis the EP, single logarithmic, double logarithmic, and power function models. The combination of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and the coefficient of determination (R2) criteria is proposed for assessing model reliability. It is shown that in certain cases the combined criteria, versus R2 alone, significantly increase the number of test groups meeting the acceptable performance limit. Observed test data aberrations are found to have minor influence on the results of the EP model, but they significantly influence the results of the other four models. The EP model generally predicts the lowest activation energy and the smallest strength retention for similar groups of bars, while the predicted values of the other four models exhibit a relatively small difference. The difference between the predicted strength retention values of the EP and MEP models shows an increasing trend with the increase of the absolute value of (1 − n), where n is the power of the exposure time in the MEP model.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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