Tests on reinforced-concrete-filled, fiber-reinforced-polymer circular tubes of different shear spans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the shear behavior of concrete-filled glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) tubes (CFFTs) reinforced with either steel or fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) longitudinal rebar. To evaluate the contribution of the GFRP tubes, control specimens with and without steel spirals, instead of the tubes, were also tested. Shear span-to-depth ratios (a/D) of 1 and 2 were considered in 14 three-point bending tests. CFFT specimens with a/D = 1 failed in shear by diagonal tension failure of the concrete core and tube, whereas those with a/D = 2 failed mostly in flexure. Control specimens failed in shear at both a/D = 1 and a/D = 2. The shear strength of CFFT beams was substantially higher than that of control specimens but was dependent on rebar type and size. Some slip occurred between the concrete core and both the GFRP tube and the rebar. It is concluded that shear failure may occur in reinforced CFFTs at a/D ≤ 2. Despite the shear failure of steel-reinforced CFFTs at a/D = 1, the measured moments at failure were only 9% lower than their respective ultimate flexural strengths. A simplified strut-and-tie model was developed, and it showed reasonable agreement with experimental results.Key words: concrete-filled glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer tube (CFFT), concrete-filled, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), rebar, shear span, shear strength, tube, strut-and-tie 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".