Deflection Prediction of Steel and FRP-Reinforced Concrete-Filled FRP Tube Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of experimental and theoretical investigations that study the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tubes (RCFFTs) beams. The experimental program consists of 10 circular beams [6 RCFFT and 4 control reinforced concrete (RC) beams] with a total length of 2,000 mm, tested under four-point bending load. The experimental results were used to review and verify the applicability of various North American code provisions and some available equations in the literature to predict deflection of RCFFT beams. The measured deflections and the experimental values of the effective moment of inertia were analyzed and compared with those predicted using available models. The results of the analysis indicated that the behavior of steel and FRP-RCFFT beams under the flexural load was significantly different than that of steel and FRP-RC members. This is attributed to the confining effect of the FRP tubes and their axial contribution. This confining behavior in turn enhanced the overall flexural behavior and improved the tension stiffening of RCFFT beams. For that, the predicted tension stiffening of steel and FRP-RCFFT beams using the conventional equations (steel or FRP-RC member) underestimates the flexural response; therefore, the predicted deflections are overestimated. Based on the analysis of the test results, the Branson’s equation for the effective moment of inertia of RC structures is modified, and new equations are developed to accurately predict the deflection of concrete-filled FRP tube (CFFT) beams reinforced with steel or FRP bars.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".