Total bond-slip and friction-dilatancy membrane model for R/C structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total-strain based membrane models for finite element analysis of reinforced concrete have been developed in Canada and the US and elsewhere and have been used successfully to analyze a variety of concrete structures. A major advantage of the total-strain approach is that consideration of crack widths and crack spacing can be avoided by computing only the average stress and strain in the concrete and smeared steel. Bond/slip behavior is dealt with indirectly using a tension stiffening approach and either fixed or rotating crack models. A fundamental issue with all such models is shear transfer across cracks. Numerous methods for computing the reduced shear modulus, G, have been developed, the simplest being multiplying the shear modulus by a reduction factor, β, which varies between 0 and 1. A method for determining the shear modulus using shear/slip relationships derived by Walraven (1981) was developed by Vecchio (1986). However, this relationship does not apply to cyclic loading. Furthermore, it does not enforce a functional relationship between slip and separation so that ‘‘shear friction’’ behavior is not properly modeled.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".