Experimental and Analytical Reexamination of Classic Concrete Beam Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classic series of beam tests conducted by Bresler and Scordelis some 40 years ago to investigate the behavior of reinforced concrete in shear, is commonly regarded as a benchmark against which finite element analysis models can be calibrated. A nominally identical set of beams was recently tested at the University of Toronto. Aspects of behavior of the original and duplicate beams are compared and discussed, including load–deformation response, load capacity, and failure mode. Generally, it was found that most aspects of behavior were well replicated. Test observations reveal that the behavior of the beams is highly influenced by crushing of concrete beneath and adjacent to the loading plates. In the case of the beams containing no shear reinforcement, failure was influenced by the reinforcement anchorage plates. The disturbances around the loading plates and anchor plates introduce complex three-dimensional effects, making the modeling of these beams using two-dimensional finite element techniques difficult. However, accuracy is substantially improved if out-of-plane confinement effects are considered. In addition to some insights on the behavior of the original beams, and on factors that should be considered in their finite element modeling, the duplicate tests also provide information on postpeak behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".