Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is a comparative analysis of the experimental test results of twenty T-section beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars without stirrups with predicted values of the shear capacity according to the following design guidelines: draft Eurocode 2, Japanese JSCE, American ACI 440, Italian CNR- DT-203/2006, British BS according to fib Bulletin 40, Canadian CSA-S806-12 and ISIS-M03-07. Standard procedures for FRP reinforced beams based on traditional steel reinforced concrete guidelines. The longitudinal FRP reinforcement has been taken into account by its stiffness reduction related to the steel reinforcement. A basis of this modification is the assumption that the FRP-to-concrete bond behaviour is the same as it is for steel reinforcement. To assess the compatibility of predicted values (Vcal) with the experimental shear forces (Vtest) the safety coefficient η = Vtest / Vcal was used. The results corresponding to values η < 1 indicates overestimation of the shear capacity, but η > 1 means that shear load capacity is underestimated. The most conservative results of the calculated shear capacity are obtained from the ACI 440 standard. In contrast to them the best compatibility of the calculated shear values to the experimental ones indicated British BS standard, fib Bulletin 40 and Canadian CSA-S806-12 standard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.354 | 0.208 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".