Shear Capacity of Reinforced Lightweight Concrete Beams: Concrete Recipes and Experimental Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Standard 8110, Canadian Standards Association A23.3-04, and American Concrete Institute 318-11 suggest the equation to estimate the shear strength of reinforced lightweight concrete beam based on the 28-days compressive strength. However, the compressive strength of LWC can be variable depend on the type of lightweight aggregate selected and this can cause problems in the accurate prediction of shear strength. LWC generally showed the lower strength compared to that of conventional concrete due to the high internal porosity of lightweight aggregate. Understanding the effect of different aggregate type on the shear capacity of reinforced LWC beams is important to improve existing standards and better application of LWC in actual structures. Experimental studies were conducted to investigate the effect of aggregate type on the shear capacity of reinforced all lightweight concrete beams. Total 12 RC beams with three different coarse aggregates were prepared and comparisons were made with existing design guidelines. In sum, some important suggestions were made for the better use of LWC in actual concrete structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".