MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941382995 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.1734

Opening effect on punching shear strength of RC slabs

2017· article· en· W2941382995 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlabStructural engineeringPunchingShear (geology)Finite element methodReinforced concreteMaterials scienceShear strength (soil)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Punching shear failure can happen in reinforced concrete flat slabs due to the development of high shear stresses in the slab-column connection area. These shear stresses are increased when openings are created, since the presence of openings reduce the concrete area that sustains the shear stresses. In this paper, finite element analysis (FEA) with the damaged plasticity model for concrete in ABAQUS is performed to simulate the opening effect in reinforced concrete slabs without shear reinforcement. A previously tested and analyzed interior slab-column connections is considered. The effect of the location and the size of the opening on the punching shear resistance are investigated. The punching shear capacity of the analyzed specimens is calculated using the equations of two current design provisions for punching shear (ACI 318-14, Eurocode2-2004) and compared with the numerical results. A probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation for both design codes is considered. Finally, fragility analysis is performed in order to estimate the probability of the estimated punching shear resistance related with the opening size and distance.‌‌</p>

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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