Design Philosophy Study on CFRP RC Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present dissertation was developed with the main purpose of comparing the different design philosophies existing for prestressed reinforced concrete members, as well as analyzing a solution that is both safe and economically viable. Since one of the major problems in civil engineering infrastructures is due to corrosion, a study was conducted to examine the feasibility of replacing the material used as reinforcement and prestress. The steel, which for many decades has been used shall be replaced by FRP, particularly CFRP. However, since carbon presents a brittle behavior, a new design methodology suggested by fib and by the Canadian code is presented so that the failure is not due to the reinforcement but due to the concrete, which, although it is not a ductile material, presents more ductility than materials with carbon fibers. In this way, a code has been developed so that, through the balance of the cross section, it calculates the amount of reinforcement required, following the American (ACI) and European code (Eurocode) design methodology. Another code for prestressed reinforced concrete members was elaborated to analyze the prestress system used and the material used as reinforcement and tendons. The European code has proved to be economically viable since, for the same applied moment, it requires a smaller amount of reinforcement. As for the bonded and unbonded system the results show that the systems with unbonded tendons are only feasible when the concrete members are subjected to high moments. It is also observed that depending on the initial force applied on the prestress, the results may be favorable regarding to the amount of reinforcement required, however the amount of reinforcement can be significantly increased when the initial force of the prestress is highly increased.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".