Evaluation of FRP-Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforcement: Analysis Using Shear Crack Propagation Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determination of the maximum shear capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) beams and slabs has been a challenging task for over 100 years. Recently, the shear crack propagation theory (SCPT) was developed as a unified mechanics-based solution to determine the ultimate capacity and to explain the phenomenon of one-way shear in RC members without shear reinforcement. The proposed theory is not limited to steel-RC members and can be applied to members with nonmetallic reinforcement accounting for their material parameters and constitutive relationships. Further, the SCPT does not focus only on the ultimate state but also on the behavior during the entire loading process up to failure. In this paper, the application of the SCPT is extended to RC members with longitudinal fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement without stirrups for the first time. A parametric study is first presented to explore the effect of FRP bar properties on shear behavior and shear transfer mechanisms in RC beams. Subsequently, the experimental results of 44 beam tests reported in the literature are used for validation. The results showed that the SCPT provided accurate estimates of the shear strength of FRP-RC beams that compared favorably with those from current design codes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".