Experimental Behavior of FRP Confined Concrete Cylinder Wrapped by Two Different FRPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of experimental investigation on concrete cylinders confined with two different types of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets, they are: synthetic high strength CFRP composites and composites using natural fiber like Jute. These two FRPs are very much distinct with respect to their strength and recycle properties. Conventional FRPs like CFRP possess superior mechanical strength than natural FRPs, but have got some serious drawbacks such as high density, high cost and poor recycling and non-biodegradable properties. On the other hand, the durability of the natural fibers can be enhanced by mummification of the fibers within the epoxy resin. An experimental study was conducted, where twenty six small scale cylindrical concrete specimens (100 × 200 mm) were subjected to uniaxial compression up o failure and the corresponding stress-strain behaviors were observed. The ultimate failure load and the deformation at peak load were the two important observations. The results demonstrate that a significant increase in the compressive strength can be achieved by confining the concrete with CFRP but both strength and ductility are compromised when concrete is wrapped with JUTE-FRP. However, JUTE-FRP shows reasonably good ductile behavior for the case of low strength concrete and can safely be used for brick masonry column. For low cost strengthening work, JUTE-FRP can be an alternative for low strength concrete and masonry works.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".