Nonlinear tensile behavior of ±55˚ concrete-filled GFRP tubes: Experimental and theoretical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) tubes (CFFTs) with angle-ply configurations, such as ±55˚ glass-FRP (GFRP) tubes, show highly nonlinear behavior that is not captured by conventional cross-ply tubes. A key challenge has been capturing their failure strains under tension, since large deformations have prevented accurate measurements with conventional instrumentation. This study addresses this challenge by introducing a novel test configuration capable of capturing the tensile response of ±55˚ GFRP tube filled with concrete (±55˚ CFFTs) under pure axial tension. A well-instrumented ±55˚ CFFT beam test was conducted, which recorded ultimate tensile strain of 0.077 mm/mm for the first time. To complement the experiments, nonlinear finite element (FE) models were developed to simulate ±55˚ CFFTs tensile behavior. The models successfully reproduced the nonlinear response with only 3%-4% variance from experimental results. Building on these findings, a design-oriented constitutive tension equation was formulated specifically for ±55˚ GFRP tubes, and an analytical model incorporating this equation was then established to predict the moment capacity of ±55˚ CFFT beams, and validation against multiple experimental beam tests demonstrated strong predictive accuracy (85%-100% agreement in ultimate load and deflection), representing a substantial improvement over existing models.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".