An adequate theory for the shear strength of reinforced concrete structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional shear design procedures for concrete structures rely on empirical equations derived from laboratory experiments and lack the type of adequate theory that forms the basis of flexural design. As shear resistance depends on so many variables and because laboratory tests do not cover the full practical range of parameters, empirical shear design equations can result in structures with inadequate shear strength. Recent failures of such structures have highlighted the need for shear design provisions solidly based on an adequate theory. This paper introduces such a theory and explains the simple design models derived from the theory, which include a strut-and-tie model for disturbed regions and a sectional model for flexural regions. These models form the basis of the shear provisions on the 2004 Canadian standard for the design of concrete structures. In the current paper, results from nine major experimental series are compared with predictions from the new shear provisions and with predictions from the shear provisions of the Eurocode and the American Concrete Institute code. It is demonstrated that the new shear design provisions are capable of predicting the shear strength of reinforced concrete members and prestressed concrete members with considerably greater reliability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it