Shear strength prediction for reinforced concrete beams without stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, shear design of concrete beams without stirrups has relied on empirical equations derived from laboratory experiment data. However, such methods lack a sound theoretical basis for shear failure of reinforced concrete (RC) structures due to the complexity of the failure mechanism. In the 1980s, a relatively rational model based on the modified compression field theory (MCFT) was developed at the University of Toronto and subsequently accepted worldwide; it forms the basis of shear provisions in Canadian standards and American specifications for the design of concrete structures. This paper describes further research based on the MCFT. An expression for the average shear stress across a crack was derived and a simplified equation of shear strength considering the size effect in shear was developed. The obtained equations were verified with extensive sets of experimental data from different sources (598 beams in total). It was found that the variation coefficients of the ratio of shear strength calculated using the derived average shear stress across a crack based on the MCFT and the simplified expressions to the test data was small; the mean was about 0·8. It is thus considered that the simplified expressions are suitable for shear analysis and design of RC beams without stirrups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".