MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396749693 · doi:10.1080/13632469.2024.2352002

Torsion and Combined Torsion-Axial Load Behaviour of Concrete Filled Steel Tube Columns with and without ECC/CFRP Wrap

2024· article· en· W4396749693 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earthquake Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsion (gastropod)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete-filled tube columns may experience coupled torsion and axial compression under seismic and wind loading. Fifteen square, rectangular, and circular concrete filled steel/aluminium tube (CFST/CFAT) are tested under pure torsion to understand the behaviour and develop/validate finite element (FE) models. Parametric studies under pure torsion are conducted using FE models to study the effect of geometric (tube cross-section, length, and thickness) and tube/concrete material parameters on torsional strength, stiffness, and tube-concrete composite interaction. FE models are used to study strength, stiffness, and failure modes of CFST columns under combined torsion and axial compression load at various preload levels of axial and torsion. Coupled torsional preloading and subsequent axial load reduce the axial load capacity significantly, while coupled axial preloading and subsequent torsional loading have shown no significant influence on the torsional strength of CFST columns. Implementation of FE models developed for CFST columns with engineered cementitious composite (ECC) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) wraps showed significant enhancement of axial strength and stiffness compared to control (without wrap) even under high torsional preload level. The energy absorption capacity and ductility of the CFRP wrapped CFST column are about 1.38 and 1.1 times higher than its counterpart with ECC wrap of same axial load capacity. Overall, the results suggest that use of both CFRP and ECC wrap is an effective approach to enhance the torsional behaviour and ductility of CFST columns under combined torsion and axial loading conditions. However, high crack resistance and better post-peak ductility of ECC wrapped CFST compared to sudden CFRP rupture failure in CFRP-wrapped counterpart should be taken into consideration for seismic applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it