An Experimental Study on Punching Shear Behavior of Concrete Slabs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In determining the punching shear capacity of flat slabs, current codes of practice usually do not consider the effect of boundary restraint against rotation. The contribution of flexural steel reinforcement is ignored by some of the code provisions. Present paper is comprised of the test results of 15 model slabs in an effort to ascertain the influence of boundary restraint, the influence of flexural reinforcement and effect of thickness of the slabs on their structural behavior and punching load-carrying capacity. Cracking pattern and load-deflection behavior of the slabs tested have also been monitored closely. Significant effect of edge restraint on the punching failure load, resulting in an enhancing of the ultimate punching strength, and effect of flexural reinforcement on the punching failure load have been noticed. The code-specified strength of the specimens was calculated in accordance with the American, British, Canadian, European, and Australian codes. It has been understood that punching shear is not effectively estimated in some codes. Thus, inclusion of the findings of the study in the design codes is expected to result in a rational design of structural systems where punching phenomenon plays a vital role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".