MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414370821 · doi:10.1177/13694332251375219

Numerical and theoretical investigations on flexural behavior of two-way RC slabs strengthened with BFRP grid-ECC composites

2025· article· en· W4414370821 on OpenAlexaff
Mingyu Zhu, Jiyue Hu, Yifan Huang, Hongjun Liang, Haoyu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Structural Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFlexural strengthParametric statisticsComposite numberBasalt fiberFailure mode and effects analysisFinite element methodFibre-reinforced plasticDuctility (Earth science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper delves into the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) two-way slabs strengthened with basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP) grid and engineered cementitious composite (ECC). Building upon a prior comprehensive experimental investigation on slabs strengthened with BFRP-ECC composites, this study focuses on developing reliable strength models through the proposal of accurate finite element (FE) models. By meticulously comparing failure modes, load–deflection responses and strain developments of steel reinforcements and BFRP grids between FE predictions and experimental observations, the efficacy of the FE model in accurately predicting test results is demonstrated. The average ratio of the predicted to experimental ultimate load is 1.02, with a coefficient of variation of 0.041. A subsequent parametric study shed lights on key factors influencing the flexural performance of these strengthened slabs. It turned out that increasing ECC thickness significantly enhanced the flexural capacity, with an improvement ranging from 30.2% to 140.2%. Furthermore, a design-oriented model, incorporating the development of yield line and uniformity of BFRP strain is introduced, effectively capturing the ultimate load and moment of strengthened slabs. This research not only advances the understanding of the strengthening mechanism but also offers practical insights for designing and assessing such composite systems.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.237
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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207