Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Confined Circular Concrete Columns: Investigation of Size and Slenderness Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory investigations of the compressive behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-confined concrete columns have generally been carried out using relatively small-scale specimens, and the majority of theoretical models that have been developed so far are based on test data from such specimens. However, the use of small specimens may conceal possible scale effects. In this study, the influence of slenderness ratio and specimen size on axially loaded FRP-confined concrete columns was investigated experimentally, and the results have been compared to theoretical models and experimental results gathered from the published literature. The investigation aims to validate past results obtained from concrete cylinders and to verify existing empirical models as well. Three different specimen diameters and two slenderness (length-to-diameter) ratios, combined with two FRP-confinement materials, were varied as parameters. According to the statistical analysis of the results, it is shown that conventional FRP-confined concrete cylinders can effectively be used to model the axial behavior of short columns. Size effects, however, are clearly evident in very small (≈50mm diameter) specimens. The usefulness of published results involving such small-scale specimens is therefore questionable, as is the validity of theoretical models and strength predictions based on test data from small-diameter specimens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".