Repeated Loading Tests of Concrete Walls Containing Headed Shear Reinforcement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it