Condition Assessment Tool for Reduced Strength of Eccentrically Loaded Columns with Damaged FRP Wraps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps of reinforced concrete columns might be vulnerable to accidental damage or vandalism. This study aims to develop a simple empirical tool that is based on experimental results to aid in the condition assessment and establish the reduced axial strength ratio (P/Po) of short columns that are loaded at small eccentricities. A total of 47 cylinders, 152 mm in diameter (D), were wrapped with carbon–FRP sheets of 1–3 layers [i.e., producing confinement effectiveness (fcc′/fc′) of 2.3–4.0] and were then subjected to a vertical cut of length (x) that varied from 0.20D to 0.61D at midheight. The loading eccentricity (e) varied from zero to 0.1D. The cut location around the perimeter, for the angle (θ) that was measured from the point of extreme compression, was varied from 0° to 180°. The jacket cuts affect eccentrically loaded cylinders more severely than concentrically loaded ones. As e increased from zero to 0.1D, P/Po reduced from 1.0 to 0.81 for intact samples and from 0.56 to 0.40 for samples with jacket cut. As the cut location traveled around the circumference starting from extreme compression (θ = 0°), less strength reduction was observed where P/Po increased, and at θ = 180° it even exceeded P/Po at zero eccentricity. This suggests a reduction in eccentricity due to a shift in the cross-sectional centroid due to the disturbed confinement on one side. Design models that account for e/D, θ, x/D, and inclined cuts have been developed and calibrated for cylinders of up to 22 slenderness ratio. In addition, a design example is presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".