Evaluation of Punching Shear Strength Models for Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)-Reinforced Concrete (RC) Flat Plates Subjected to Unbalanced Moment-Shear Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provisions for the punching shear strength of glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP)-reinforced concrete (RC) flat plates in the current North American and Japanese standards were investigated based on a database of experimental results of both interior and edge slab-column connections. In total, the results of 39 slab-column connections ranging extensively in their geometric and material properties were collected from the literature and analyzed to assess the accuracy and validity of the code provisions. In addition, the applicability of eight proposed analytical models from the literature was verified against the results of the dataset. It was demonstrated that the Canadian and Japanese standards provide the most consistent and accurate predictions; however, the American guidelines highly underestimate the capacities. In contrast, many of the proposed analytical models yielded inconsistent and unsafe estimates when applied to both concentrically and eccentrically loaded interior and edge connections. The assumption of a linear stress variation proposed by the eccentric shear stress model was validated for GFRP-RC edge specimens subjected to unbalanced moment-shear transfer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".