MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129574667 · doi:10.1061/41031(341)176

Shear Strength of Members without Transverse Reinforcement

2009· article· en· W2129574667 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evan C. Bentz

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcementStructural engineeringDuctility (Earth science)Transverse planeReinforced concreteComputer scienceBridge (graph theory)Shear (geology)Shear strength (soil)EngineeringMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineers designing concrete structures use many different types of elements including walls, beams, columns, and slabs. Slabs are often designed so that they do not need to contain transverse reinforcement. While such reinforcement can significantly increase member ductility and strength, it can add sufficient cost and time delays during construction that its removal can be an efficient design decision. To safely be able to avoid the use of such reinforcement, it is important that the engineer have a good understanding of how reinforced concrete members without transverse reinforcement behave so that problems can be avoided. This paper will briefly present the one-way shear design methodology used in the Canadian CSA building code as well as the most recent updates to the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. The principles behind the method will be graphically demonstrated against individual data series as well as a larger database of about 1100 published sectional shear failures from the past 60 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2009Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207