Experimental Study on Punching Shear Behavior of Crushed Clay Brick Lightweight Concrete Flat Plate Slabs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental investigation on the behavior of crushed clay brick (CCB) lightweight concrete (LWC) flat plate slabs under punching load. The CCB resulting from either the building process or the remnants of brick factory production lines constitutes one of the most notable wastes in the world, which motivated many researchers exploring its usage as an alternative to natural aggregates. Six LWC slabs were constructed from CCB as coarse and fine aggregates in addition to crushed brick powder (CBP). The produced concrete had a compressive strength of 25, 28, and 32 MPa and a dry density of less than 1800 kg/m3 . The tested slabs were divided into three groups (A, B, and C) according to the compressive strength. Each group had included two different tension reinforcement ratios of 0.428 and 0.616%. Based on the test results, the effect of the lightweight aggregates (LWA) was discussed and compared to codes' prediction of punching capacity. These codes include the ACI-318-19, EC-2, the Canadian code CSA-2004, ECP-203-2017, and the JSCE-2007. From the test results, it was found that the surface of punching shear failure of the tested slabs extended a distance ranged from 2.3 to 3.3 times the slab thickness measured from the column face, with the shear plane inclined at 20.3° to 27.4° to the plane of the slab. In addition, the punching shear strength can be fairly predicted by the selected international codes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".