Shear Strength of One-Way Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the shear strength of one-way concrete slabs reinforced with different types of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. A total of eight full-size slabs were constructed and tested. The slabs were 3,100mmlong×1,000mmwide×200mmdeep. The test parameters were the type and size of FRP reinforcing bars and the reinforcement ratio. Five slabs were reinforced with glass FRP and three were reinforced with carbon FRP bars. The slabs were tested under four-point bending over a simply supported clear span of 2,500 mm and a shear span of 1,000 mm. All the test slabs failed in shear before reaching the design flexural capacity. The experimental shear strengths were compared with some theoretical predictions, including the JSCE recommendations, the CAN/CSA-S806-02 code, and the ACI 440.1R-03 design guidelines. The results indicated that the ACI 440.1R-03 design method for predicting the concrete shear strength of FRP slabs is very conservative. Better predictions were obtained by both the CAN/CSA-S806-02 code and the JSCE design recommendations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".