STR-937: BEHAVIOUR OF FRP-REINFORCED CFFT COLUMNS UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSION LOADING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the test results of an experimental study aimed at investigating the axial behaviour of CFFT columns internally reinforced with steel and FRP bars. A total of eight reinforced concrete (RC) and concrete-filled FRP tube (CFFT) columns were constructed and tested until failure. All columns had 1900-mm in height and 213-mm in diameter. The test parameters were: (1) internal reinforcement type (steel, glass FRP (GFRP), or carbon FRP (CFRP) bars) and amount, (2) GFRP tube thicknesses, and (3) nature of axial loading type (i.e. monotonic and cyclic). The experimental results revealed that the CFFT columns reinforced with GFRP bars exhibited similar responses compared to their counterparts reinforced with steel bars with no significant difference in terms of ultimate axial strength and strain capacities. Providing the GFRP tubes of the CFFT columns significantly enhanced the strength and strain capacities and attributed to change the mode of failure from axially dominated material failure (for the control columns) to instability failure (for the CFFT columns). Furthermore, the envelop curve of the CFFT reinforced column tested under axial cyclic loading is almost identical to the axial stress-strain curve of the same specimen tested under axial monotonic loading. However, the ultimate axial and hoop rupture strain was slightly larger for the specimen subjected to axial cyclic loading. Finally, using FRP bars instead of conventional steel bars in the CFFT columns can provide a step forward to develop a promising totally corrosion-free new structural system.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".