Shear Strength of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Masonry Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the effect of using glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) flexural reinforcement on the shear strength of reinforced masonry (RM) beams. For this purpose, two sets of shear-critical RM beams were tested, one set being two courses high, the other being five courses high. Each set consisted of two RM beams, one reinforced with GFRP and one reinforced with high-strength steel. The reinforcement ratio was kept constant for all beams. The test results showed that the use of GFRP reinforcement resulted in considerably reduced shear strength compared to beams reinforced with steel. Furthermore, the failure shear stresses of the beams decreased significantly due to increases in depth indicating that size effect is real in reinforced masonry. The shear behavior of the RM beams was seen to be fundamentally similar to that of reinforced concrete beams. As shear design expressions in most of the masonry design codes, such as TMS 402-2016 code, are intended to be used for designing masonry beams reinforced with conventional steel, the test results showed that these expressions can yield unsafe shear predictions for GFRP-reinforced or high-strength steel-reinforced masonry beams. The general method of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) S304-2014 code, on the other hand, was able to capture safely the variations in the shear strength of GFRP-reinforced masonry. The general method is based on the modified compression field theory and can account for all influential factors affecting the shear strength of reinforced masonry beams. The results of this paper highlight the necessity of revising masonry design codes to address the size effect and the effect of reinforcement stiffness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.044 | 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 teacher head, 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".