MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104552494 · doi:10.1139/l03-078

Behavior of concrete columns confined by carbon composite tubes

2004· article· en· W2104552494 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Won‐Kee Hong, Hee-Cheul Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKyung Hee University
KeywordsComposite numberMaterials scienceComposite materialTransverse planeDuctility (Earth science)Tube (container)Structural engineeringCarbon fibersCreepEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The carbon composite tube can play an important role in replacing or complementing longitudinal and transverse reinforcing steels by providing ductility and strength for conventional columns. In this study, both experimental and analytical investigations of axial behavior of large-scale circular and square concrete columns confined by carbon composite tubes are presented. The specimens are filament-wound carbon composite with 90° + 90°, 90° ± 60°, 90° ± 45°, and 90° ± 30° winding angles with respect to a longitudinal axis of a tube. The instrumented large-scale concrete-filled composite tubes are subjected to monotonic axial loads exerted by a 10 000 kN universal testing machine (UTM). The influence of transverse dilation, winding angle, thickness of a tube, as well as shape of the column section on stress–strain relationships of the confined columns is identified and discussed. Proposed equations to predict both strength and ductility of confined columns by carbon composite tubes demonstrate good correlation with test data obtained from large-scale specimens.Key words: carbon composites, glass fibers, strength, filament winding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207