Experimental Verification of Current Shear Design Equationsfor HSRC Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental research on the shear capacity of HSRC (High Strength Reinforced Concrete) beams is relatively very limited as compared to the NSRC (Normal Strength Reinforced Concrete) beams. Most of the Building Codes determine the shear strength of HSRC with the help of empirical equations based on experimental work of NSRC beams and hence these equations are generally regarded as un-conservative for HSRC beams particularly at low level of longitudinal reinforcement. In this paper, 42 beams have been tested in two sets, such that in 21 beams no transverse reinforcement has been used, whereas in the remaining 21 beams, minimum transverse reinforcement has been used as per ACI-318 (American Concrete Institute) provisions. Two values of compressive strength 52 and 61 MPa, three values of longitudinal steel ratio and seven values of shear span to depth ratio have been have been used. The beams were tested under concentrated load at the mid span. The results are compared with the equations proposed by different international building codes like ACI, AASHTO LRFD, EC (Euro Code), Canadian Code and Japanese Code for shear strength of HSRC beams.From comparison, it has been observed that some codes are less conservative for shear design of HSRC beams and further research is required to rationalize these equations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".