Comparative study of structural behavior of CFRP tubes and traditional steel for pile and column applications compliance with international codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (CFRPs) are highly valued in structural engineering due to their exceptional strength-to-weight ratio, durability, and corrosion resistance. While the design of reinforced concrete is governed by specific building codes, CFRPs have unique design considerations. This study delves into a comparative analysis of eight prominent building codes: ACI318 (American Concrete Institute), EC2 (Eurocode 2), ECP (Egyptian Code of Practice), BS8110 (British Standard), IS456 (Indian Standard), CP65 (Singapore Standard), CSA A23.3 (Canadian Standard), and HK CP (Hong Kong Code of Practice). The focus is on circular CFRP sections under bending and axial loads, which are more complex than rectangular sections. By comparing design requirements for general properties, bending, and column provisions, this paper aims to identify significant differences in design procedures. A software tool was developed to support analysis, and its results align closely with previous studies, available well-known programs, and interaction diagrams from various codes. Key factors influencing the capacity of CFRP structural elements, such as tube thickness and concrete strength, were investigated. The validated developed software is unique in analyzing columns and laterally loaded piles using the aforementioned building codes. The interaction diagrams generated by the program based on EC2, ECP, BS8110, and HK CP showed a high degree of similarity to those available in the design aids and charts, with the Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values of less than 5%, indicating the software's accuracy in determining the ultimate load-carrying capacity of circular sections.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".