MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Columns Confined by Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Tubes

2006· article· en· W1989718975 on OpenAlexaff
Togay Ozbakkaloglu, Murat Saatçioğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormworkMaterials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticReinforcementBrittlenessComposite materialDeformation (meteorology)EpoxyStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) in seismically active regions poses a major concern because of the brittle nature of material. The confinement requirements for HSC columns may be prohibitively stringent when ordinary grade transverse steel reinforcement is used. An alternative to conventional confinement reinforcement is the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tubes in the form of stay-in-place formwork which can fulfill multiple functions of: (1) formwork; (2) confinement reinforcement; and (3) protective shell against corrosion, weathering and chemical attacks. The use of stay-in-place FRP formwork is investigated as concrete confinement reinforcement for HSC and normal strength concrete (NSC) columns with circular cross sections. Large-scale specimens with 270mm circular cross-sections and different concrete strengths were tested under constant axial compression and incrementally increasing lateral deformation reversals. FRP tubes were manufactured from carbon fiber sheets and epoxy resin. The results indicate that inelastic deformability of HSC and NSC columns can be improved significantly by using FRP tubes, beyond the performance level usually expected of comparable columns confined with conventional steel reinforcement.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations161
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207