Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results are presented from 23 shear tests on 1-m deep specimens made of low-strength concrete and tested with shear span-to-effective depth ratios between 1.4 and 2.4 to obtain information that is relevant to the one-way shear strength of footings. Based on these results and other test results from the literature, an amendment is proposed to the 1994 Canadian concrete code one-way shear strength provisions for members without stirrups. In order to account for the beneficial effects of strut-action in deep members such as footings, it is proposed that the reduction in shear strength due to size not be applied to sections located less than 2d from the face of a support or concentrated load when the applied shear introduces compression into the member. The strut-and-tie provisions in the Canadian code, which has stress limits to prevent concrete compression failures, normally should be used to design deep members, but should not be used to design members without minimum stirrups. The proposed revision eliminates the unnecessary increase in footing depths that is needed to meet the one-way shear strength requirements of the 1994 Canadian concrete code.Key words: building codes, footings, reinforced concrete, shear strength, structural design, tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".