One-Way Shear Strength of FRP–Reinforced Concrete Members Without Stirrups: Design Provision Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Concrete Institute recently updated their one-way shear provisions for steel–reinforced concrete (RC), and it is time to consider updating provisions for one-way shear in fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)-reinforced concrete (FRP–RC). The shear strength of FRP–RC is lower than steel–RC mainly because FRP, particularly glass–FRP, has a much lower modulus of elasticity than steel. This study evaluates the performance of current design provisions at predicting the one-way shear strength of RC members without stirrups that are internally reinforced with longitudinal FRP bars, based on 147 tests available in the literature. Further, shear parameter effects (concrete strength, size effect, span to effective depth ratio, modulus of elasticity, and longitudinal reinforcement ratio) were also investigated. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to classify each provision, and results show that the codes, standards, and guidelines are identified as more consistent groups compared with the proposed models. The method proposed in the CSA S806-12 standard is the most consistent of the studied approaches at predicting the shear strength of the tested members with a mean predicted-to-experimental strength closest to one and the minimum average absolute error.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".