Evaluation of the new <i>Canadian highway bridge design code</i> shear provisions for concrete beams with fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian highway bridge design code (CHBDC) contains provisions for designing concrete members with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement. In the second edition of the code, new shear design procedures for FRP-reinforced sections are provided. These procedures are consistent with those for steel-reinforced members in the code, in consideration of some modifications that account for the substantial differences between FRP and steel reinforcement. The shear approach adopted in the CHBDC follows the traditional approach of Vc + Vs for shear design. This paper presents an evaluation of this approach by comparing it with experimental shear strengths of available test data on beams longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars and with or without FRP stirrups. In addition, the CHBDC approach was compared with the FRP shear design provisions currently in effect in North America using the available test results. The comparison shows that the CHBDC method significantly underestimates the shear strength of FRP-reinforced concrete beams. A proposed modification to this method is presented and verified against available test 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".