Shear Strength of Large Concrete Members with FRP Reinforcement
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".