FRP-RC/PC members subjected to combined actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity provisions of conventional Reinforced Concrete (RC) and Prestressed Concrete (PC) beams subjected to combined action of torsion, shear and flexure are well known and stated by international/national codes. Similar provisions lack for concrete members containing Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcements. In general, there is paucity of research on the treatment of torsion combined with other stress resultants for FRP-RC/PC members. In this paper, the theoretical method pro-posed by the Canadian standard CSA S806 for FRP-RC/PC structures is presented. The critical issues, related to this topic, such as the appropriate strength and inclina-tion of the diagonal struts and failure criteria are critically analyzed and addressed. In order to assess the reliability of this study a comparison between available exper-imental data regarding FRP-RC/PC beams subjected to combined actions and their corresponding theoretical provisions derived by the CSA S806 standard is shown. Furthermore, another approach, available in literature, which is based on the space truss model, is examined and used for comparison in order to evaluate the theoretical provisions offered by this model against the tests value of the set of the beams ana-lyzed in this study. Based on the critical analysis of the results, it can be highlighted that the CSA method is able to conservatively predict the capacity of these beams.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".