Shear Strength of Large Concrete Members with FRP Reinforcement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing interest in the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement for reinforced concrete structures has made it clear that insufficient information about the shear performance of such members is currently available to practicing engineers. This paper summarizes the results of 11 large shear tests of reinforced concrete beams with glass FRP (GFRP) longitudinal reinforcement and with or without GFRP stirrups. Test variables were the member depth, the member flexural reinforcement ratio, and the amount of shear reinforcement provided. Results showed that the equations of the Canadian CSA shear provisions provide conservative estimates of the shear strength of FRP-reinforced members. Recommendations are given along with a worked example on how to apply these provisions including to members with FRP stirrups. It was found that members with multiple layers of longitudinal bars appear to perform better than those with a single layer of longitudinal reinforcing bars. Overall, it was concluded that the fundamental shear behavior of FRP-reinforced beams is similar to that of steel-reinforced beams despite the brittle nature of the reinforcement.
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.
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 it