Performance Evaluation of Concrete Columns Reinforced Longitudinally with FRP Bars and Confined with FRP Hoops and Spirals under Axial Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code contain flexural and shear provisions for the design of concrete bridge members reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Because of a lack of research, these standards do not recommend using FRP bars to resist compressive stresses in compression members. This paper reports on 14 full-scale circular RC columns tested under concentric axial load. The columns were reinforced with longitudinal FRP bars and confined with circular FRP spirals or hoops. Sand-coated glass-FRP (GFRP) and carbon-FRP (CFRP) reinforcement was used. The test parameters included configuration of the confinement reinforcement (spirals versus hoops), hoop lap length, volumetric ratio, and FRP reinforcement type (glass versus carbon). The test results indicate that the GFRP and CFRP RC columns behaved similarly to columns reinforced with steel. Using GFRP and CFRP spirals or hoops according to the provisions of the Canadian Standards Association S806-12 yielded sufficient restraint against the buckling of the longitudinal FRP bars and provided good confinement of the concrete core in the postpeak stages. The results of this study can be used as a fundamental step toward code provisions for using GFRP or CFRP spirals and hoops as internal confinement reinforcement in bridge pier and pile foundations.
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".