Structural behaviour of composite slab with high performance concretes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite slabs with profiled steel deck and concrete toping have gained wide acceptance as they lead to faster, lighter and economical construction. Extensive research works have been conducted on the behaviour of composite slabs to study their structural behavior and steel-concrete interface shear bond resistance which primarily governs the failure. However, the use of emerging highly durable engineered cementitous composite (ECC) in composite slab is new and no research has been conducted yet. High strain hardening and intrinsic crack width characteristics of ECC can significantly improve structural performance of composite slabs through enhancing ductility, energy absorbing capacity and steel-concrete shear bond. In this study, experimental investigations are conducted to evaluate the shear bond characteristics of composite slabs made with ECC and conventional self-consolidating concrete (SCC) using Code based m-k method. Twelve slab specimens having variable shear span and two types of profiled steel deck were tested under four point loading. The performance of ECC and SCC composite slabs are compered based on load-deflection response, stress-strain development in concrete and steel, failure modes, energy absorbing capacity and steel-concrete shear bond parameters (m and k) and bond stress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".