MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224979793 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090215

Influence of Strut Geometry on the Size Effect of FRP Reinforced Simply Supported Deep Beams: A Theoretical Analysis

2022· article· en· W4224979793 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeometrySection (typography)Structural engineeringCover (algebra)Group (periodic table)Bearing (navigation)Materials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticGroup effectGeologyComposite materialMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduction in the shear strength accompanied to the increasing in the section depth is characterised as size effect, assuming that all parameters are kept constant. Such behaviour is controlled by many factors. The geometry of the element formed between the load and support points is one of those factors that need to be highlighted. Owing to that, this study aims to assess the impact of the strut geometry on the size effect from the strut and tie method (STM) point of view. As the strut geometry is represented by bearing plates and concrete cover, the current study has focused on those two parameters. Accordingly, two groups of specimens have been examined analytically using STM of the American, European and Canadian codes. In each group, three depths were used of 500, 100, and 1500 mm. The only differences between those two groups are dimensions of bearing plates (loading and supporting) and concrete cover. In the first group, the dimensions of bearing plates and concrete cover have been kept constant with 250 mm and 60 mm, respectively regardless of the section depth. In the second group, those two parameters have been proportioned with the section height to be 15% and 8% of section height, respectively. Furthermore, an experimental database of 25 deep beams reinforced with polymer bars has been compiled from the literature to evaluate the ability of the STM to consider the size effect. The results showed that STM does not consider the size effect. Additionally, the collected data confirmed that the STM of American and European codes overestimated the shear capacity, while the STM of Canadian code gave a conservative prediction, highlighting the need of suitable models for shear strength prediction of FRP reinforced deep elements.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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