Effects of square spiral pitch and tie overlap on the behavior of GFRP-reinforced concrete columns under concentric and eccentric loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural behavior of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-reinforced concrete (RC) columns is studied to evaluate the effects of square spirals and ties under concentric and eccentric loading. An experimental program was conducted on fifteen specimens with varied configurations, including spiral pitches, tie spacing and overlap lengths, and reinforcement ratio, to evaluate their impact on confinement, load-bearing capacity, and deformability. Results indicated that GFRP bars contributed between 7 % and 15 % of load-bearing capacity, while steel reinforcement contributed approximately 30 %. Under concentric loading, a denser spiral pitch increased the peak load by about 6 %, though spiral pitch had minimal effect on peak loads under eccentric loading. In both loading types, columns with denser spirals exhibited a more gradual post-peak load decline. Whereas under eccentric loading, larger spiral pitches led to a more brittle failure pattern, often resulting in the crushing of compressive bars. In specimens with ties, increasing the tie overlap length by 40 % above the code minimum shifted the failure mode from sudden, crack-free failure to gradual post-peak failure. An analytical model was developed and validated using data from the experiment in this study and from the literature. The model accurately predicted load-displacement and strain behavior across various eccentricities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".