Comparison of the shear behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams with GFRP and steel transverse reinforcements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comparison of the shear behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams transversely reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) and steel bars. Two full-scale beams with GFRP and steel stirrups spaced at 150 mm on-center were fabricated and tested up to failure using the four-point static bending test. Another beam without web reinforcements was also cast to determine the shear contribution of the geopolymer concrete. All the beams were provided with the same amount of flexural reinforcements. The beams were supported over a 1200 mm clear span with 450 mm shear span on each side. The shear span-to-depth ratio of the beams was 1.8. Based on the test results, the provision of GFRP stirrups almost doubled the shear capacity of the beam without web reinforcements. Comparable load-deflection response, shear strength, deflection capacity, and strain readings were observed between the beams with GFRP and steel stirrups. The two beams yielded similar crack pattern; however, wider cracks were developed in the former beam owing to the lower elastic modulus of GFRP bar compared with steel bar. Furthermore, both beams failed in shear, classified as a diagonal strut compression failure; however, the failure of the beam with GFRP stirrups was induced by the stirrup’s lap splice failure while steel yielding caused the failure of beam with steel stirrups. This had led to a more brittle final failure of the former beam compared with the latter beam.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".