Evaluation of Shear Capacity of FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Artificial Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To calculate the shear capacity of concrete beams reinforced with fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP), current shear design provisions use slightly modified versions of existing semi-empirical shear design equations that were primarily derived from experimental data generated on concrete beams having steel reinforcement. However, FRP materials have different mechanical properties and mode of failure than steel, and extending existing shear design equations for steel reinforced beams to cover concrete beams reinforced with FRP is questionable. This paper investigates the feasibility of using artificial neural networks (ANNs) to estimate the nominal shear capacity, Vn of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. Experimental data on 150 FRP-reinforced beams were retrieved from published literature. The resulting database was used to evaluate the validity of several existing shear design methods for FRP reinforced beams, namely the ACI 440-03, CSA S806-02, JSCE-97, and ISIS Canada-01. The database was also used to develop an ANN model to predict the shear capacity of FRP reinforced concrete beams. Results show that current guidelines are either inadequate or very conservative in estimating the shear strength of FRP reinforced concrete beams. Based on ANN predictions, modified equations are proposed for the shear design of FRP reinforced concrete beams and proved to be more accurate than existing equations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".