Strength predictions of pile caps by a strut-and-tie model approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a strut-and-tie model approach is presented for calculating the strength of reinforced concrete pile caps. The proposed method employs constitutive laws for cracked reinforced concrete and considers strain compatibility. This method is used to calculate the load-carrying capacity of 116 pile caps that have been tested to failure in structural research laboratories. This method is illustrated to provide more accurate estimates of behavior and capacity than the special provisions for slabs and footings of the 1999 American Concrete Institute (ACI) code, the pile cap provisions in the 2002 CRSI design handbook, and the strut-and-tie model provisions in either the 2005 ACI code or the 2004 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 standard. The comparison shows that the proposed method consistently well predicts the strengths of pile caps with shear span-to-depth ratios ranging from 0.49 to 1.8 and concrete strengths less than 41 MPa. The proposed approach provides valuable insight into the design and behavior of pile caps.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".