Flexural Load Testing of Concrete-Filled FRP Tubes with Longitudinal Steel and FRP Rebar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexural performance of reinforced concrete-filled glass-fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) tubes (CFFTs) has been investigated using seven specimens, 220mm in diameter and 2.43m long. Specimens were reinforced with either steel, GFRP, or carbon–fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebar of various sizes. Prefabricated GFRP tubes with most of the fibers oriented in the hoop direction were used in five specimens. One control specimen included conventional steel spirals of stiffness comparable to the GFRP tube and the other had no transverse reinforcement. Test results have shown that CFFT beams performed substantially better than beams with a steel spiral. Unlike CFFTs with FRP rebar, CFFTs with steel rebar failed in a sequential progressive manner, leading to considerable ductility. An analytical model capable of predicting the full response of reinforced CFFT beams, including the sequential progressive failure, has been developed, verified, and used in a parametric study. It is shown that laminate structure of the tube affects the behavior, only after yielding of the steel rebar. Steel reinforcement ratio significantly affects stiffness and strength, whereas concrete strength has an insignificant effect on the overall performance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".