Modeling of Corroded FRP-Wrapped Reinforced Concrete Columns in Axial Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the mechanical behavior of reinforced concrete columns wrapped with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets. A numerical routine was developed to predict the behavior of the columns using a step-by-step technique. The routine is based on an existing model and was modified to account for confinement provided by the traditional steel as well as the external FRP wraps. Several empirical equations for the confined concrete were calibrated with results from experimental tests from different published papers. The most accurate equation was incorporated into the routine to predict the stress-strain relation of the column up to failure. A different confinement to the outer concrete cover and the inner core was used to account for the FRP wraps and the transverse steel. The model was calibrated with experimental results from different experiments on FRP-wrapped reinforced concrete columns.The model was taken one step further by using it to predict the behavior of reinforced concrete columns, with a combination of steel corrosion and CFRP wraps. The columns modeled were subjected to harsh corrosive environment over 44 months. The model successfully predicted the load deformation in both axial and circumferential directions in corroded and intact columns, both wrapped and unwrapped, with good accuracy. The analysis forms a solid foundation for accurate evaluation of the effect of corrosion and wrapping on reinforced concrete columns.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".