Influence of Load Pattern on the Shear Strength of Hollow Core Slabs in Uncracked Sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precast hollow core slabs are frequently used to cover large spans for industrial, commercial and residential buildings.Their use has been proved during many years of application to be reliable and economical.However, their construction methods, whether they are extruded or slip-formed, do not make it possible to insert shear resistant reinforcements.For this reason, there are still today significant inconsistencies between experimental data of shear strength of these elements and design strength provided for by the specific structural standards, especially for slabs of greater thickness.In this work, additional considerations, with respect to those already present in the literature, are made on the influence of applied load type (concentrated or distributed) and on the distribution modalities of the stresses upon collapse between the different webs.Detailed numerical analyses are carried out with the commercial FE code Abaqus to determine the shear strength in the uncracked bending zones and to individuate the crack pattern at collapse.The first results of the investigations indicate that the shear strengths of hollow core slabs for distributed loads are always greater (between 22.9% and 41.1% for the investigated slabs) than those observed for concentrated loads.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".