Slenderness effect on GFRP-RC columns with square spirals under concentric and eccentric loading: Experimental and analytical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the behavior of slender glass fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced concrete (GFRP-RC) columns, specifically those reinforced with GFRP bars and square spirals. Nine column specimens were tested, with varying slenderness ratios of 20, 40, and 60, and load eccentricities of 0 %, 15 %, and 30 % of the section height. Under concentric loading, increased slenderness led to a 16–31 % decrease in column strength, primarily due to amplified bending moments and lateral deformations, worsened by the asymmetry of the square spirals. Under eccentric loading, spiral rupture was observed only at a slenderness ratio of 20 and 15 % eccentricity. Spirals provided critical stability for shorter columns under moderate loads, but their effectiveness diminished in more slender columns and under higher eccentricities. As slenderness increased, the spirals’ contribution to confinement and load-bearing capacity decreased; for instance, at 15 % eccentricity, increasing slenderness from 20 to 60 reduced load capacity by 13 % and 32 %, respectively. A transition in failure mode from compression-dominated to bending-dominated failure was observed as eccentricity increased. An analytical model, assuming sine-shaped deformation for single-curvature bending, was developed and validated against experimental data. Based on this, a slenderness limit of 14 for GFRP-RC columns with 2–4 % longitudinal reinforcement ratio was recommended. • Slender GFRP-RC columns with square spirals were tested, and an analytical model was developed and validated. • Tests included concentric and eccentric loading (15%, 30%) with slenderness ratios of 20, 40, and 60. • A slenderness limit of 14 is recommended for GFRP-RC columns with longitudinal reinforcement ratios ranging from 2 % to 4 %.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".