Shear Strength of FRP Reinforced Concrete Members with Stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms of shear transfer in fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced concrete members with shear reinforcement are discussed, and it is explained how these were used to derive the shear design provisions of the Canadian standard for design and construction of building structures with FRPs. Subsequently, the accuracy of these provisions and the validity of their underlying assumptions are assessed by comparing the predicted shear strengths of over three hundred FRP-reinforced beams with their corresponding experimental values. Although the focus of the paper is mainly on beams with FRP shear reinforcement, for completeness beams with and without shear reinforcement are analyzed. It is determined that the mean and standard deviation of the ratio of the test to predicted shear strength of the beams without shear reinforcement are 1.16 and 0.24, respectively, whereas those of beams with shear reinforcement are 1.15 and 0.23. The strengths of these beams are also computed using the recommendations and it is shown that overall recently proposed Canadian method yields more accurate and consistent results.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".