Investigation of glass-fibre-reinforced-polymer shells as formwork and reinforcement for concrete columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation was conducted to study the behaviour of full-scale concrete-filled glass-fibre-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) shells under concentric compression. The main objective was to assess the suitability of prefabricated GFRP shells for stay-in-place formwork and confining reinforcement for columns. Seventeen columns, 356 mm in diameter and 1524 mm long were tested. The nominal target concrete compressive strength at 28 d was 30 MPa. Variables examined included number of GFRP layers, fibre orientation, and amount of longitudinal and lateral steel. Confinement by GFRP shells resulted in concrete response that displayed increased strength and associated strain followed by a ductile descending branch. Fibres in the longitudinal direction improved the load-carrying capacity of the columns, but the increase was less than the capacity of the fibres determined from the tension tests. Glass-fibre-reinforced-polymer shells also eliminate the need for closely spaced confinement steel, which should improve the quality of construction. In addition to ease of construction, GFRP shells provide protection against environmental effects, thus helping to reduce life cycle costs.Key words: columns, confinement, stay-in-place formwork, strength, ductility, energy capacity, earthquake, seismic resistance, lateral reinforcement, glass-fibre-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) shell.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".