Shear strength of glass fiber reinforced polymer – reinforced concrete continuous beams without transverse reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear behaviour of continuous concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars without shear reinforcement has not been studied yet. However, the current codes and guidelines for FRP-reinforced concrete (RC) structures provide shear provisions that are applicable to both simple and continuous members. These provisions are based on test results of simple beams that do not account for the continuity of indeterminate structures. In this paper, the test results of large-scale GFRP-RC continuous beams without transverse reinforcement are presented. The test variables are the type and ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, and concrete strength aiming to evaluate the shear strength of such beams. The test results showed that moment and shear redistribution occurred. Also, the shear capacity of GFRP-RC continuous beams increased as both the longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete strength increased. Moreover, it was found that the continuity affected the concrete contribution to the shear strength where the ratio of experimental-to-predicted shear strength by different codes and guidelines was less than that of simply-supported beams.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".