MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403692195 · doi:10.1177/00219983241295809

Deformability of filament-wound GFRP tubes filled with lightweight aggregate concrete: Experimental and improved analytical studies

2024· article· en· W4403692195 on OpenAlexaff
Kraig Bates, Pedram Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialAggregate (composite)Fibre-reinforced plasticProtein filamentFilament windingStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research indicates that lightweight aggregate (LWA) concrete exhibits more brittle failure under compression than conventional normal density (ND) concrete. In contrast, angle-ply fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) filament-wound tubes filled with ND concrete show significant improvements in strength and deformability compared to hollow tubes. This study evaluates the impact of these tubes on LWA concrete to mitigate its brittle behavior. Sixteen concrete-filled FRP filament-wound tubes (CFFTs) made of ±55° filament-wound glass FRP (GFRP) were tested under axial compression. The GFRP tube’s mechanical properties and fiber winding angle of ±55° allowed for a compressive strength enhancement factor ranging from two to five for the CFFTs compared to unconfined specimens. Results also revealed substantial nonlinearity and deformability in the LWA-CFFTs due to the angle-ply tube orientation. An iterative analytical model predicted the CFFT’s nonlinear response, validated by experimental data. The findings demonstrate that angle-ply FRP tubes effectively enhance the bearing capacity and deformability of inherently brittle unconfined LWA concrete.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207