Unbalanced Moment Transfer in GFRP-RC Slab–Column Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When reinforced concrete (RC) slabs are supported directly on columns, a combination of shear forces and unbalanced bending moments is transferred between the slab and the columns at slab–column connections. The unbalanced moment transferred between a slab and a column can be significantly increased by the application of horizontal loads, such as wind and seismic loads. According to current design codes and standards for steel–RC structures in North America, a portion of the unbalanced moment is assumed to be transferred by the eccentricity of shear, while the remaining portion is assumed to be transferred by flexure. Previous research shows that the slab width that contributes to transferring the flexure portion is bounded by lines located at a distance of 1.5 times the slab thickness on each side of the column. This study investigates whether the same slab width can be used to transfer the unbalanced moments in slab–column connections reinforced with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement. A similar approach to that used for steel–RC connections is followed to analyze data from 27 GFRP-RC connections without shear reinforcement reported in the literature. Furthermore, a previously validated finite-element model is used to investigate the strain distribution in the longitudinal slab reinforcement along the transverse direction of the slab. The results show that a smaller slab width bounded by lines located at a distance of 0.5 times the slab thickness on each side of the column is recommended for GFRP-RC slabs.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".