Comparison and Evaluation of Current Strut-and-Tie Design Provisions for Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current American Concrete Institute(ACI), Canadian Standard Associate(CSA) and CEB-FIP Model Code 2010 provisions on the shear strength of a simply supported deep beam suggest that deep beams should be designed using the strut-and-tie model. Although this is a useful methodology to design members in disturbed regions, the quality of the design is highly dependent on the truss model that designers create. However, Hong et al. derived the shear strength equations of reinforced concrete deep beams. This thesis investigates the validity of the current ACI, CSA and CEB-FIP code provisions on the shear strength of simply supported reinforced concrete deep beams by comparing them with the shear strength equations proposed by Hong et al. The comparison shows that all of these code provisions provide reasonable estimates on the shear strength of concrete deep beam members and the selection of an internal truss model plays an important role on the estimation of shear strength.
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".