Tests and Analysis of Cantilevered GFRP Tubular Poles with Partial Concrete Filling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, six glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) cantilevered tubular poles were tested in flexure. Four poles were filled with varying amounts of concrete; within 13, 30, 51, and 72% of their lengths, from the fixed point. Two poles, namely, a hollow and a totally concrete-filled tubes, were also tested as control specimens. The filament-wound prismatic tubes were 3,660 mm long, including a 700 mm clamped length at the fixed end, with a 220 mm outer diameter, and 4.15 mm wall thickness. The study aims at increasing flexural strength of thin-walled GFRP tubular poles by using a small amount of concrete at the vicinity of maximum moment near the base. Test results showed that flexural strength increases as the length of concrete fill is increased, until it reaches a plateau corresponding to about double the strength of the hollow tube, when the concrete fill is about one third of the clear length. This is considered the optimal condition for this tube that provides the largest strength-to-weight ratio. Poles with a shorter filling length failed prematurely, by a combined local buckling and crushing of the hollow part, while poles with a longer filling length failed at the base by rupture of the tube in tension. An analytical model was developed, validated, and used in a parametric study. The correlations between the optimal filling length ratio and both “diameter-to-thickness” ratio, and laminate structure of the tube, have been demonstrated for both angle-ply and cross-ply tubes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".