Concrete Shear Strength of Normal and Lightweight Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars
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
A new equation to predict the contribution of concrete to the shear strength of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced concrete beams without shear reinforcement is proposed. The new equation considers the elastic modulus ratio of the FRP bars to the steel reinforcement, the shear span to depth ratio, and the flexural reinforcement ratio, and was developed using the results of 60 concrete beam tests. The proposed equation more accurately predicted the results of various experiments available in the literature than the equations of an American Concrete Institute standard, and yielded similar degrees to the equations of a Canadian Standards Association standard, despite making somewhat higher predictions. The applicability of the proposed equation to FRP reinforced lightweight concrete beams was investigated using 24 all-lightweight concrete beam tests. The concrete shear strengths of the FRP reinforced all-lightweight concrete beams were equivalent to 75% of the strengths predicted by the proposed equation for normal concrete. Furthermore, with a reduction factor of 0.85, the proposed equation also showed good results for the concrete shear strength of glass FRP (GFRP) reinforced sand-lightweight concrete panels presented in a recently published paper.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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