A constitutive model of concrete confined by steel reinforcements and steel jackets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a total of 60 concrete cylinders 30 cm in diameter and 60 cm in length confined by steel jackets of different thicknesses and different types of lateral steel reinforcements are tested to obtain the stress–strain curves of the cylinders. A constitutive model is proposed to describe the behavior of concrete confined by steel reinforcement, steel jackets, and both steel reinforcement and steel jackets used to retrofit and strengthen reinforced concrete structures. The confined concrete stress–strain curve of the proposed model is divided into two regions: the curve in the first region is approximated using a second-order polynomial equation, and that in the second region using an nth-order power-law equation, where n is a function of the unconfined concrete strength and the lateral confining stress. The results of the experiments show that different types of lateral steel reinforcement contribute greatly to the compressive strength of concrete cylinders confined by the reinforcement. Comparing the stress–strain curves of the uniaxial test with that from the proposed model, we conclude that the proposed model for concrete confined by a steel jacket and lateral steel reinforcement can predict the experimental results very well.Key words: constitutive model, steel jacket, confined concrete.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".