Shear and flexural behaviour of lightweight self-consolidating concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shear and flexural behaviour of lightweight self-consolidating concrete (LWSCC) beams made of slag aggregates were investigated. Shear reinforced LWSCC beams showed similar shear behaviour compared to their non-shear reinforced counterparts until the formation of diagonal cracks but higher ultimate shear resistance and ductility. Compared to normal weight self-consolidating concrete (SCC) ones, non-shear reinforced LWSCC beams showed lower post-cracking shear resistance. Shear strength of LWSCC/SCC beams increased with the decrease of shear span to depth ratio. LWSCC beams showed higher number of cracks and wider crack width at failure than their SCC counterparts. LWSCC beams developed higher number of cracks with wider crack width at failure compared with their SCC counterparts. American, Canadian and British Codes were conservative in predicting shear strength of shear/non-shear reinforced LWSCC beams. LWSCC beams (with slag aggregate) showed good shear resistance compared with those made of other types of aggregates besides satisfactory flexural performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".