GFRP Stirrups as Shear Friction Reinforcement for Different Concrete Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcements can be used as shear friction connectors at the interface of concrete composite elements to maintain structural integrity. However, the shear friction mechanism at the interface greatly depends on the interface condition and the stiffness of the reinforcement crossing the interface plane. A total of 18 GFRP-reinforced concrete (RC) push-off specimens were constructed and tested until failure under monotonic load. The test parameters included the shear plane condition (roughened or not roughened, cold joints and monolithic), type (steel and GFRP), and ratio (0.24%–0.47%) of reinforcement crossing the shear plane. Roughening the interface had a little effect on the overall behavior and shear capacity of the specimen. Conversely, the monolithic specimens carried approximately 60% higher load than their cold-joint counterparts; nevertheless, the failure was more brittle. The capacity prediction by the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code showed conservative results. By contrast, the predictions of the American Concrete Institute’s model for steel-RC elements overestimated the test results for cold-joint and monolithic specimens with reinforcement ratios of 0.43% or higher.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".