Punching Shear Strength of GFRP-RC Interior Slab–Column Connections Subjected to Moment Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the test results of five full-scale reinforced concrete (RC) interior slab–column connections. Each specimen consisted of a 2,800-mm square slab with a thickness of 200 and 300-mm square central column stubs. Four slabs were reinforced with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars and one reference slab was reinforced with steel bars. The connections were subjected to eccentric load with a moment-to-shear ratio equal to 0.15 m. The test parameters included the type and ratio of the reinforcement and concrete compressive strength. Test results revealed that increasing the GFRP reinforcement ratio or the concrete strength increased the connection capacity and decreased the deformation of the tested slabs. Moreover, the GFRP-RC connection that has similar reinforcement rigidity to the steel-RC one showed comparable capacity and deflection at failure. Test results were compared with different available models and design provisions including the Canadian standard, the American guideline, and the Japanese code. The Canadian standard and the Japanese code predicted the punching capacity of the test slabs with better accuracy compared with the American guideline.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".