Shear strength of concrete beams cast with self-compacting concrete containing different fillers and coarse aggregates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation was conducted to evaluate the shear strength provided by different self-compacting concrete mixes proportioned using different fillers and coarse aggregates. A total of 28 simple beams without shear reinforcement were tested in flexure. The test parameters included the use of gravel versus crushed dolomite as coarse aggregates, the amount of longitudinal reinforcement, and the composition and percentage of fillers. Dolomite stone powder with either silica fume or fly ash was used as fillers replacing cement aiming at reducing the cost of the mix and obtaining better performance. The test results indicated that the overall structural performance in terms of cracking pattern and shear strength was comparable in all mixes. While the dolomite beams sustained higher ultimate shear loads, the normalized shear strength of most of the gravel beams were higher compared to their dolomite counterparts due to the capability of gravel beams to develop interlocking mechanisms and post-cracking shear resistance compensating the influence of the lower compressive strength.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".