Numerical Modeling of Shear Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Different Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims at creating finite-element models for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) shear strengthened concrete beams. It is inspired by the fact that the determination of the structural behavior of shear strengthened beams requires advanced numerical methods of which results are substantiated by credible experimental findings. The models are developed here to assess the shear and interfacial types of behavior of beams strengthened using one of three different schemes, namely, externally bonded (EB), mechanically fastened (MF), and hybrid EB/MF FRP schemes. The interfacial behavior between the EB, MF, and hybrid EB/MF FRP and the concrete is accounted for using interface elements for both vertical and inclined FRP strips. A user-defined subroutine for the microplane constitutive law for the concrete material is incorporated in the model. Results are presented in terms of the ultimate load-carrying capacities, load-deflection relationships, and interfacial stress/slip distributions. Numerical results are validated against available experimental data and show reasonable agreement. Models for hypothetical cases of MF FRP strengthened beams are created to enrich the discussion on the interfacial bearing stress distributions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".