Concrete contribution to the shear resistance of FRP-reinforced concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete structures causes deterioration of concrete, resulting in costly maintenance and repair. Many steel-reinforced concrete structures exposed to deicing salts and marine environments require extensive and expensive maintenance. Recently, the use of fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP) as an alternative reinforcing material in reinforced concrete structures has emerged as an innovative solution to the corrosion problem. However, due to the difference in mechanical properties between steel and FRP reinforcements, the shear strength of concrete members reinforced with FRP longitudinal reinforcement may differ from that of members reinforced with steel. An experimental program including two phases is described. The experimental program was conducted at the University of Sherbrooke to investigate the effect of using FRP bars as longitudinal reinforcement on the shear strength and behaviour of concrete beams without web reinforcement. The first phase included 15 large-scale concrete slender beams reinforced with glass FRP, carbon FRP, or conventional steel bars. Nine beams were constructed using normal-strength concrete, whereas six beams were constructed using high-strength concrete. The test variables were the reinforcement ratio and the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing bars as well as the concrete compressive strength. The second experimental phase included 12 large-scale concrete deep beams reinforced with glass FRP, carbon FRP, or conventional steel bars. The test beams of this phase were constructed using normal-strength concrete and the test parameters were the reinforcement ratio and the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcing bars as well as the shear span-to-depth ratio. The influence of the considered variables on the shear strength and behaviour of the tested beams in the two phases is presented. An analytical investigation to examine the validity of the available design provisions of concrete contribution to shear strength for members longitudinally reinforced with FRP bars is reported. For this purpose, the shear strengths of the tested beams are analyzed using the shear design provisions of the different available codes, manuals, and design guidelines. The results of the analysis are compared with the experimental values. Based on the findings of this investigation, a proposed shear design equation is presented. The proposed equation is verified against experimental shear strengths of 107 specimens tested to date, including the specimens in this investigation. In addition, the proposed equation is compared to the major design provisions using the available test data to further evaluate its reliability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".