Flexural Behavior of Concrete-Filled Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Circular Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the experimental results of large-scale concrete-filled glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) circular tubes and control hollow GFRP and steel tubes tested in bending. The diameter of the beams ranged from 89 to 942 mm and the spans ranged from 1.07 to 10.4 m. The study investigated the effects of concrete filling, cross-sectional configurations including tubes with a central hole, tube-in-tube with concrete filling in between, and different laminate structures of the GFRP tubes. The study demonstrated the benefits of concrete filling, and showed that a higher strength-to-weight ratio can be achieved by providing a central hole. The results indicated that the flexural behavior is highly dependent on the stiffness and diameter-to-thickness ratio of the tube, and, to a much less extent, on the concrete strength. Test results suggest that the contribution of concrete confinement to the flexural strength is insignificant; however, the ductility of the member is improved. A strain compatibility model has been developed, verified by the experimental results, and used to provide a parametric study of the different parameters, significantly affecting the behavior. The parametric study covered a wide range of FRP sections filled with concrete, including under-reinforced, balanced, and over-reinforced sections.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".