MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049915232 · doi:10.1680/macr.10.00020

Shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams with web reinforcement

2011· article· en· W2049915232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei-wei Wei, Jinxin Gong, Yi Che

Bibliographic record

VenueMagazine of Concrete Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsShear (geology)ReinforcementReinforced concreteStructural engineeringShear strength (soil)Geotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceCompression (physics)GeologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modified compression field theory (MCFT), developed in the 1980s, is capable of predicting the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) and forms the basis of shear provisions in Canadian and American specifications for the design of concrete structures. In the MCFT method, shear is considered to be resisted by cracked concrete and web reinforcement. However, previous studies have shown that a significant portion of the shear is carried by the compression zone. This paper describes further studies on the MCFT to predict shear capacity while taking account of the contribution of concrete in compression. In the proposed model, the shear strength of RC beams is defined as the sum of contributions of concrete in the compression zone, cracked concrete below the neutral axis and shear reinforcement. The results predicted by the proposed model are compared with data from beam experiments in the literature. The shear strengths predicted by the proposed method are in good agreement with the test results, implying that the method can be used to predict shear capacity for RC beams.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagazine of Concrete ResearchSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207