MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301933079 · doi:10.1680/ijpmg.2003.030102

Pre - and post-cracking behaviour of fibre reinforced concrete beams on grade

2003· article· en· W2301933079 on OpenAlexaff
Shiqi Lin, Peter H. Bischoff, Arun J. Valsangkar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgradeCrackingGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringBeam (structure)Foundation (evidence)Reinforced concreteMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural design of strip, combined footings, and raft foundations is commonly based on an elastic subgrade assumption. The subgrade is either assumed to be a continuum or to consist of a series of discrete springs and the foundation is assumed to behave elastically. Experimental verification of the simple case of elastic beam on subgrade reaction is reported in the literature, but the data are not extensive. Furthermore, the data pertaining to concrete beams on elastic subgrade before and after cracking is almost non-existent. Therefore, an experimental program was undertaken to study pre- and post-cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete beams on elastic subgrade. Two types of subgrade and different end boundary conditions were studied. The beams were subjected to a concentrated point load at the centre. The results of the experimental program are compared with predictions assuming soil to be represented by a series of discrete elastic springs. The results of this study will also help in developing a better understanding of the soil-structure interaction of fibre reinforced concrete slabs on grade, which are being increasingly used in industrial warehouses.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Physical Modelling in GeotechnicsSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207