A Comparative Analysis of Codes Prediction of Shear Resistance in Beams without Shear Reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shear provisions in codes are based on empirical equations derived from experimental test results without any rational theory to explain its behavior. Some of these expressions, for example BS 8110, ACI 318 and Eurocode 2 takes into account the effect of reinforcement ratio, effective depth and concrete compressive strength while Canadian code considers the shear strength to be a function of concrete compressive strength only. The new Model code 2010 considers the shear strength of beams as a function of longitudinal strain in the web. This brings about disparity in shear strength prediction from different codes. This paper examines the accuracy of shear strength predictions in beams without shear reinforcement. The study involves a comparative analysis of shear strength predictions from five different codes: BS 8110, Eurocode 2, Canadian code, ACI code 318 and Model code 2010. A total of 435 experimental test results from database of shear critical beams in literature were used for the study. The results shows that Model code 2010 shear strength prediction is the most conservative among the five codes shear provisions considered in this study. This may be due to the assumed linear elastic state of the flexural reinforcement at the point of failure in shear. BS 8110 and Eurocode 2 predictions gave the least variation compared to other codes predictions. The highest number of unsafe shear strength predictions was obtained from Canadian code followed by prediction s from ACI 318.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".