MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122954755 · doi:10.1139/l05-100

Reinforced concrete beams without stirrups considering shear friction and fracture mechanics

2006· article· en· W2122954755 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mostafa Kazemi, Vahid Broujerdian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterlockShear (geology)Structural engineeringDiagonalBeam (structure)Reinforced concreteFracture mechanicsMaterials scienceAggregate (composite)Reinforced solidReinforcementGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsMathematicsGeologyEngineeringComposite materialGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new expression for the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams without stirrups was derived by calculating the aggregate interlock capacity across the major diagonal crack of the beam, a procedure somewhat similar to those based on the modified compression field theory. Two formulas were obtained from the simplification of this expression. All three relations capture the dependence of shear strength on the size of the beam, the ratio of shear span to beam depth, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, maximum aggregate size, and concrete strength. The limits of these formulas agree well with the limit solutions of shear failure load for very small and very large beams based on plastic and fracture mechanics solutions, respectively. The proposed relations were calibrated by least-squares fitting of the existing experimental database (consisting of 398 data points) and resulted in low coefficients of variation. The simplest version is suitable for design codes.Key words: reinforced concrete, shear strength, beams, aggregate interlock, crack opening, size effect.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207