MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeated Loading Tests of Concrete Walls Containing Headed Shear Reinforcement

2004· article· en· W1970511176 on OpenAlexaff
Young‐Hoon Kim, Young Soo Yoon, William D. Cook, Denis Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStirrupStructural engineeringReinforcementMaterials scienceDeflection (physics)StiffeningShear (geology)Composite materialConcrete coverBucklingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The repeated loading responses of four shear-critical reinforced concrete wall specimens, with two different shear span-to-depth ratios, were studied. One series of specimens was reinforced using pairs of bundled stirrups, with 90° standard tie or stirrup hooks, through the wall thickness. Comparison specimens contained shear reinforcement made with larger diameter headed bars anchored with 50 mm diameter circular heads. A single headed bar had the same area as a pair of bundled stirrups and hence the two series were comparable. The test results indicate that specimens containing headed bar stirrups have a superior performance to companion specimens containing bundled standard stirrups, with improved ductility, larger energy adsorption, and enhanced postpeak load carrying capability. Due to splitting of the concrete cover and local crushing, the hooks of the standard stirrups opened, resulting in loss of anchorage. In contrast, the headed bar stirrups did not lose their anchorage and hence were able to develop strain hardening and also served to delay buckling of the flexural compression steel. Excellent load-deflection predictions were obtained by reducing the tension stiffening to account for repeated load effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207