Tests of high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams with different shear span-to-depth ratios and main longitudinal reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test results of 12 reinforced concrete (RC) beams having three shear span to effective depth ratios and two main longitudinal reinforcement amounts are reported. Six of the test specimens were produced with engineered cementitious composites (ECCs) and another corresponding six with ultra high-strength fiber-reinforced cementitious composite (RMC). The shear span to effective depth ratios of test specimens were selected low to investigate the shear performance of ECCs and RMC characterized by ultra high ductility-moderate strength and ultra high strength-moderate ductility, respectively. Shear-carrying capacity and ductility ratios of large-scale reinforced ECC and RMC beams were compared and interpreted for different shear spans, energy absorption capacities, and stiffnesses. The experimental results showed that for the three different shear spans, the RMC beams had higher shear capacity results than the ECC beams. Using both concrete types markedly restricted shear cracking and led to flexural failure. Overall findings suggest that RMC beams have higher shear capacity and yield stiffness than ECC beams, while ECC beams have a higher deflection ductility ratio and energy absorption capacity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".