Reevaluating the Modified Shear Provision of CAN/CSA S806-12 for Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The corrosion related problems does not concern only longitudinal reinforcement but also transverse reinforcement. Thus, the FRP stirrups are used as an alternative reinforcement for concrete beams. Shear design of concrete beams is a main issue. The Canadian Standards Association CSA S806 (2012) proposed shear design provision for the case of beams reinforced with FRP bars (fiber reinforced polymer). In this paper, modified provision proposed by Deifalla et al. (2014) was introduced. The aim of this study is to validate this provision in comparison with the original CSA-S806 (2012) using experimental database exist in this field. The experimental database compiled a total of 123 concrete beams with FRP stirrups tested under shear. Both the modified and CSA-S806 (2012) design provision were calculated and compared with that measured during testing. From the results, the proposed modification provides more accurate and better performance compared to that of the CSA-S806 (2012) provision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".