Performance of Eccentrically Loaded Reinforced-Concrete Masonry Columns Strengthened Using FRP Wraps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental study that investigates the behavior of reinforced masonry (RM) columns strengthened using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) wraps under eccentric axial loading. Nine half-scale square RM columns with reinforced concrete (RC) end blocks were tested under three different eccentricity-to-section height (e/h) ratios (0.15, 0.25, and 0.50). For each load eccentricity, the columns were tested unwrapped, wrapped with one layer of CFRP, and wrapped with two layers. The effect of partially grouted masonry cells on column capacity was also evaluated. Existing analytical procedures for RC column sections were applied to the fully grouted RM columns. The experimental tests showed that CFRP wrapping increased the column’s axial capacity by up to 41% at a nominal e/h ratio of 0.25, while an enhancement of 45% was achieved at a nominal e/h ratio of 0.50. The analytical procedures were able to predict the failure mode and axial capacity of the tested columns. The columns’ axial capacities were estimated with a maximum error of 11%, which indicates the validity of the analytical procedures for eccentrically loaded RM 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".