Axial Load Capacity of Concrete-Filled FRP Tube Columns: Experimental versus Theoretical Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the experimental and theoretical results of small and medium-scale concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tube (CFFT) columns. A total of 23 CFFT specimens were tested under axial compression load. Five different types of new FRP tubes were used as stay-in-place formwork for the columns. The effects of the following parameters were examined: the FRP-confinement ratio, the unconfined concrete compressive strength, the presence of longitudinal steel reinforcement, and the height-to-diameter ratio. Comparisons between the experimental test results and the theoretical prediction values by the three North American codes and design guidelines (ACI 440.2R-08, CSA-S6-06, and CSA-S806-02) are performed in terms of confined concrete strength and ultimate load carrying capacity. The results of this investigation indicate that the design equations of the ACI 440.2R-08, CAN/CSA-S6-06, and CAN/CSA-S806-02 overestimate the factored axial load capacity of the short CFFT columns as compared to the yield and crack load levels. Also, the CAN/CSA-S6-06 and CAN/CSA-S806-02 confinement models showed conservative predictions, while the ACI 440.2R-08 was slightly less conservative. A new confinement model is proposed for the confined concrete compressive strength of the CFFT cylinders. Also, the design equations are modified to accurately predict the ultimate and yield load capacities of internally reinforced and unreinforced short CFFT columns. Two new factors are introduced in the modified equations, (kcc) accounts for the in-place-strength of CFFT columns to CFFT cylinder strength, and (kcr) accounts for the initiation of the steel yielding and concrete cracking for the FRP-confined columns.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".