Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams with stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study is conducted to investigate the shear behaviour and strength of concrete beams made with coarse recycled concrete aggregate. The distinguishing feature of the beams is the manner in which their concrete mixture is proportioned. A new method of concrete mixture proportioning is used wherein recycled concrete aggregate is treated as a two-phase material comprising residual mortar and natural aggregate, and the relative amount and properties of each phase are considered. Using this method, several beams are made of recycled concrete aggregate-concrete and tested to study their serviceability and shear strength. For each beam its load–deflection curve, shear deformations, diagonal cracking load, crack pattern, ultimate shear strength, and failure mode are determined. The results show that the shear performance of reinforced recycled concrete aggregate-concrete beams is comparable, or even superior, to that of beams made entirely with natural aggregates at both the serviceability and ultimate limit states, and the current Canadian Standards Association, American Concrete Institute and Eurocode provisions for shear design can be used without any modification to design recycled concrete aggregate-concrete beams, provided the aforementioned mixture proportioning method is used.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".