Fibre reinforced polymer shear reinforcement for concrete members: behaviour and design guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an experimental program conducted to examine the structural performance of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) stirrups as shear reinforcement for concrete structures. A total of ten large-scale reinforced concrete beams were tested to investigate the contribution of the FRP stirrups in a beam mechanism. The ten beams included four beams reinforced with carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) stirrups, four beams reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) stirrups, one beam reinforced with steel stirrups, and one control beam without shear reinforcement. The variables were the material type of stirrups, the material type of the flexural reinforcement, and the stirrup spacing. Due to the unidirectional characteristics of FRP, significant reduction in the strength of the stirrup relative to the tensile strength parallel to the fibres is introduced by bending FRP bars into a stirrup configuration and by the kinking action due to inclination of the diagonal shear crack with respect to the direction of the stirrups. A total of 52 specially designed panel specimens were tested to investigate the bend and kinking effect on the capacity of FRP stirrups, along with two control specimens reinforced with steel stirrups. The variables considered in the panel specimens are the material type of the stirrups, the bar diameter, the bend radius, the configuration of the stirrup anchorage, the tail length beyond the bend portion, and the angle of the stirrups. Based on the findings of this investigation, shear design equations for concrete beams reinforced with FRP, appropriate for the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) code, are proposed. The reliability of the proposed equations is evaluated using test results of 118 beams tested by others.Key words: shear, fibre-reinforced polymers, CFRP, cracks, GFRP, kink, stirrups, bend capacity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".