MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030052718

Modelling the fire behaviour of FRP wrapped square reinforced concrete columns

2008· article· en· W7030052718 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPiperaceae Chemical and Biological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRetrofittingFibre-reinforced plasticSquare (algebra)Reinforced concreteSeismic retrofitField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous applications of fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) have demonstrated good performance in retrofitting and repairing deteriorated reinforced concrete structures, both through research studies and through field applications. However, a paucity of available information on FRP strengthening systems at elevated temperatures, and the perceived susceptibility of these systems in fire, still discourages their use in many applications. As such, an experimental and analytical study is underway to study the fire behaviour of FRP strengthened square reinforced concrete columns. The ultimate goal of the study is to develop validated numerical models which can subsequently be used to suggest design guidelines for these types of structural members. This paper presents details of the numerical procedure used to develop a coupled heat transfer and structural analysis model for FRP strengthened square RC columns in fire. The paper also discusses the procedure to be used for upcoming fire endurance tests on two FRP-strengthened square concrete columns which will be performed in an attempt to validate the numerical models.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicPiperaceae Chemical and Biological StudiesFrench-language works237,207