Axial load behaviour of steel tube columns in-filled with various high performance concretes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research concentrates on the axial load behaviour of circular, square and rectangular concrete filled steel tube (CFST) columns incorporating high-performance self-consolidating concretes such as ultra-high strength concrete (UHSC), engineered cementitious composite (ECC), lightweight concrete (LWC), and crumb rubber concrete (CRC). Seventy-four CFST specimens with varying slenderness, shape, concrete type and presence of internal bar reinforcements are tested experimentally under axial compression loading. The effect of these variables on axial load-deformation response, strain characteristics, failure modes, concrete confinement and axial strength are evaluated through experimental results. Performance of existing analytical/code based models for axial strength and concrete confined strength is evaluated. Concretes without coarse aggregates including UHSC proved less effective at enhancing axial strength of filled tube columns through confinement. In contrast, confinement in filled steel tube columns was found most effective with the use of concretes with coarse aggregates such as LWC and CRC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".