Seismic Behavior of Square and Circular Concrete Columns with GFRP Reinforcement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results from tests on seven reinforced concrete square columns under simulated seismic loading and demonstrates their satisfactory behavior even when axial load is high. All seven specimens were confined by glass fiber–reinforced polymer reinforcement (GFRP) rectilinear ties, while five specimens were reinforced with steel longitudinal bars and two with GFRP longitudinal bars. The results showed that irrespective of the longitudinal bar type, GFRP confinement effectively improved the seismic resistance of columns. The difference in the type of the longitudinal bars resulted in significant changes in column behavior. A comparison was made between these test specimens and earlier circular columns from literature, and the confinement effectiveness of the GFRP rectilinear ties and circular spirals was evaluated. Lateral GFRP was found to have a greater influence on the flexural strength enhancement of columns with GFRP longitudinal bars versus steel longitudinal bars. Results indicate that available methods for predicting flexural strength enhancement due to confinement invariably miscalculated the true strength enhancement by a substantial margin, particularly when GFRP longitudinal bars are used. A new model for predicting the flexural strength enhancement of square and circular columns confined by lateral GFRP is proposed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it