Experimental and numerical study on flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams with low reinforcement ratios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexural behaviors of reinforced ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) beams were experimentally and numerically investigated in terms of reinforcement ratio. To do this, four UHPFRC beams with different reinforcement ratios (0%–1.71%) were fabricated and tested. Since we focused on the placement technique of the steel reinforcing bars, only a small number of reinforced UHPFRC beams were deliberately considered. Test results indicated that with an increase in the reinforcement ratio, post-cracking stiffness and load carrying capacity were increased, whereas first cracking load was decreased. The cracking behavior was characterized by numerous vertical micro-cracks up to near the peak, followed by crack localization with a gradual decrease in load carrying capacity. The number of cracks and average crack spacing were marginally influenced by the reinforcement ratio. Sectional analysis incorporating a linear compressive model and tension-softening curves obtained from inverse analyses and direct tensile test were performed and verified through comparison with the experimental moment–curvature responses.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it