Experimental Investigation of Large-Scale Eccentrically Loaded GFRP-Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Columns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten large-scale high-strength concrete (HSC) circular columns were constructed and tested to failure. Nine columns were internally reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars and spirals, whereas one was reinforced with steel bars and spirals to serve as a reference. All columns had a diameter of 350 mm. The variables tested were reinforcement type, spiral pitch, slenderness ratio, eccentricity-to-diameter ratio (e/D), and type of loading (axial or four-point bending). Experimental results showed that both reinforcement types (steel or GFRP) and the spiral pitch did not have a significant effect on the behavior of GFRP-reinforced HSC columns up to the peak load. In addition, a decrease in the axial capacity of the columns as the e/D ratio increased was observed. This was consistent for specimens of both slenderness ratios of 14 and 20. Columns with a higher slenderness ratio showed a lower axial capacity for all specimens tested under the same e/D ratio. Furthermore, slender columns with higher e/D ratio underwent much larger deformations; both axially and laterally. For columns of both slenderness ratios, axial load–bending moment interaction diagrams were produced using the experimental results and were compared to the predictions of available codes and guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".