Confinement of rectangular columns made with engineered cementitious composites (ECC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineered cementitious composites (ECC) is a type of high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites (HPFRCC) designed to achieve high tensile strain capacity with strain hardening effect during the post-cracking response. Previous studies show that ECC has high damage-tolerance capacity in tension, increasing the durability, safety, and sustainability of structures susceptible to cracking and spalling under moderate to severe loading. Under compression, however, there is a lack of data regarding confinement effects on steel-reinforced ECC (RECC) members. Thus, designing ECC structures is usually done by assuming the ECC behaves in the same way as conventional concrete under compression. With scarce experimental data available, this assumption may be inaccurate, uneconomical, or even unsafe. An experimental test program on confined ECC columns was performed in this study. Sixteen 100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm ECC square columns, consisting of one set of unconfined ECC and three sets of confined ECC with 1%, 1.5%, and 2% transverse steel content were fabricated and tested under monotonic compressive load until failure. The force–displacement and stress–strain relationships in the longitudinal direction were measured. The results show that confined ECC has a compressive stress–strain behavior similar to that of confined high-strength concrete, with a rapid compressive strength loss after peak strength, and a gradual loss of strength that is inversely proportional to the amount of steel reinforcement. An empirical stress–strain model for rectangularly confined high-strength ECC was developed based on an existing model for high-strength conventional concrete.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".