Review of shear design methods for reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fibre reinforced polymer sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the different shear design methods found in the literature for reinforced concrete beams strengthened externally with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets and compares the adequacy of each method by using the test results from the University of Alberta. The FRP shear design methods presented include the effective FRP strain and the bond mechanism criteria, the strut-and-tie model, the modified compression field theory, and a mechanical model based on the strip method with shear friction approach. Sixteen full-scale T-beam test results were used in the evaluation. Two web heights of 250 and 450 mm and two ready mix concrete batches of 29 and 44 MPa were used in the test specimens. Closed stirrups were used with three spacings: 200 mm, 400 mm, and no stirrups. Three types of FRP were used to strengthen externally the web of the T-beams: (i) uniaxial glass fibre, (ii) triaxial (0/60/60) glass fibre, and (iii) uniaxial carbon fibre. The results showed that the mechanical model using the strip method with shear friction approach evaluates better the FRP shear contribution. The predicted capacities from this mechanical model are also found conservative and in excellent agreement with the test results.Key words: beams, carbon fibres, composite materials, fibre reinforced polymers, glass fibres, rehabilitation, reinforced concrete, shear strength, sheets, tests.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".