Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete slabcolumn connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents work on punching shear rehabilitation and strengthening of existing slabcolumn connections. Four full-scale specimens representing slabcolumn edge connections were built and tested to failure. Three slabs were then repaired and strengthened and tested again. In the originally tested slabs, which were chosen for repair, one slab had an opening in front of the column and contained shear reinforcement, one slab had an opening and no shear reinforcement, and one had no opening and no reinforcement. The dimensions of the slabs were 1540 × 1020 × 120 mm with square columns (250 × 250 mm). The openings in the specimens were square (150 × 150 mm) with the sides parallel to the sides of the column. The slabs were made using normal weight concrete (28-day average compressive strength of 32 MPa) and reinforced with a reinforcement ratio of 0.75%. The slabs were repaired by replacing old-damaged concrete with new concrete of the same properties. Strengthening was carried out using shear studs for the two slabs, which originally did not have shear reinforcement. The rehabilitation increased the punching shear strength (by 2641%) and the ductility of the connections. All repaired specimens failed in flexure.Key words: concrete slabs, punching shear, rehabilitation, edge connections, openings, studs, repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".