Effect of Fly Ash on the Shear Strength of Concrete Beams Without Shear Reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The following paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of the shear strength of full-scale reinforced concrete beams constructed with both high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC)—concrete with at least 50 % of the cement replaced with fly ash—and conventional concrete (CC). This study includes two HVFAC mixes and one CC mix. The two HVFAC mixes are identical except for the amount of Class C fly ash replacement of cement, with one mix replacing 50 % of the cement with fly ash and the other replacing 70 %. The test matrix included 18 beams—six for each concrete type—with three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios. The test results were compared to the shear provisions of both U.S. and international design codes, including the design provisions from Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan. Furthermore, the shear strengths of the beams were evaluated based on fracture mechanics approaches, modified compression field theory (MCFT), and a shear database of CC specimens. Results of this study show that the HVFAC mixes possess comparable shear strength with the CC.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".