Strength and Axial Behavior of Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with CFRP Bars and Spirals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behavior of concrete members reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars has been the focus of many studies in recent years. However, limited research work has been conducted to examine the axial behavior of concrete columns reinforced with FRP bars. In this paper, the behavior and compression strength of 11 full-scale circular concrete columns reinforced with carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars and spirals were investigated. The test variables included reinforcement type (CFRP versus steel); longitudinal CFRP reinforcement ratio; and the volumetric ratio, size, and spacing of CFRP spirals. The test results indicated that the CFRP and steel reinforced concrete (RC) columns behaved in a similar manner up to their peak loads. The CFRP bars were effective in resisting compression until after crushing of concrete, and contributed on average 12% of column capacity. The design equation is modified to accurately predict the ultimate load capacities of CFRP RC columns. A new factor (αc) is introduced in the modified equation to account for the FRP bars’ compressive strength properties as a function in their ultimate tensile strength.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".