Effect of Transverse Reinforcement Ratio on the Shear Strength of GFRP-RC Continuous Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of seven large-scale continuous concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) bars and stirrups were constructed and tested to failure. One reference beam was reinforced with steel bars and stirrups and six beams were reinforced longitudinally and transversally with GFRP bars. Moreover, a three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) model was constructed to simulate the shear behavior of such beams. The beams had rectangular cross section of 200×300 mm and were continuous over two spans of 2,800 mm. The test variables include concrete strength and transverse reinforcement ratio. All test beams failed in shear near the interior support after significant moment redistribution. Also, the test results showed that no significant increase in the shear strength occurred when the shear reinforcement ratio increased by using a larger stirrup diameter. On the other hand, the FE models showed that increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio through decreasing the stirrup spacing is more efficient. Experimental and numerical results showed that the CSA/S806-12 code yielded better predictions compared with the ACI 440.1R-06 guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".