Study on the axial compression behavior of masonry columns strengthened with engineered cementitious composite splints and fiber-reinforced polymer strips
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 experimental and analytical studies on the axial compressive properties and failure mechanics of 19 strengthened masonry columns. The masonry column was strengthened singly and compositely by applying engineered cementitious composite (ECC) splints and wrapping discontinuous fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) strips around the sides of the masonry column. The effects of the type of strengthening material (ECC splints or FRP strips), the thickness of the ECC splint, and the FRP strip strengthening area ratio on the failure mode, peak load, strain behavior, and energy dissipation of the specimens were analyzed and discussed in this experimental study. Under the appropriate parameters, the best strengthening effect was observed for the compositely strengthened masonry columns. In particular, the ductility, bearing capacity, and energy dissipation of masonry columns can be significantly improved by utilizing FRP with lower tensile strength, a higher FRP strip strengthening area ratio and a thicker ECC splint. Based on the existing computational models and code calculation methods for masonry columns strengthened with ECC splints and FRP strips, a formula for calculating the compressive bearing capacity of strengthened masonry columns was derived. The error between all the calculated and the measured results was less than 7.1%.
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