Fibre-reinforced polymer composite shear reinforcement: performance evaluation in concrete beams and code prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the performance of carbon and glass fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) stirrups and the accuracy of the shear design provisions incorporated in the currently available design codes and guidelines. A total of seven large-scale T-beams were constructed and tested: three reinforced with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) stirrups, three reinforced with glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) stirrups, and one reinforced with a steel stirrup for comparison, when applicable. The test results revealed that the design strength of the tested beams is not affected by the reduced strength of FRP stirrups at bend locations. Also, the recent CAN/CSA-S6 update is capable of adequately predicting the shear strength of the beam specimens reinforced with FRP stirrups. The software, Response-2000, which is based on the modified compression field theory (MCFT), predicted well the shear strength and the average strain in the stirrups of the tested beams; however, it overestimated the shear crack width.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".