Effect of test parameters on flexural strength of circular fiber-reinforced polymer-confined concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents experimental results of a study conducted to investigate the use of filament-wound fiber-reinforced polymer tubes as a stay-in-place structural formwork for concrete beams. The experimental study was carried out on a total of seven concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube beams of 213 mm diameter and 2000 mm long. Five concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube beams and two control specimens without tube were tested under four-point bending. One control specimen was reinforced with spiral steel while the other had no transverse reinforcement. The test parameters used in this investigation include the type of internal reinforcement (steel or glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars), the type of transverse reinforcement (spiral-steel or fiber-reinforced polymer tube), fiber-reinforced polymer tube thickness and the concrete compressive strength. The fiber orientations of the tubes were mainly in the hoop direction. The test result indicated that the two control specimens failed in shear; however, using glass fiber-reinforced polymer tubes instead of transverse spiral-steel changed the mode of failure of the five concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube beams to flexural failure. The experimental cracking moments of the steel and fiber-reinforced polymer-concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer tube beams were compared to theoretical predictions provided by North American codes, design guidelines and the available equations in the literature. The test results indicate that the fiber-reinforced polymer tube enhances the crack and ultimate moment capacities of the test specimens, whereas it provides a longitudinal reinforcement in the tension side. In addition, improvement to the crack moment equation is suggested to account for the effect of confinement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".