Evaluation of shear design criteria of beams according to NBR6118 applying the modified compression field theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is known that design deficiencies in shear design are more dangerous than bending, as shear failures can occur in a fragile way and without possibility of redistributing internal forces. Unlike bending design, designing for shear loads by different standards can generate significantly different results for the same element, as long as design models have been under discussion for many years. This paper analyses the evaluation of the behavior of the combined bending and shear loads in reinforced concrete beams for different pairs of these forces. For this purpose, the verification presented in ABNT NBR 6118 was used and compared to a more improved theory currently used, the Modified Compression Field Theory - MCFT. This theory is able to predict the relationships of specific loads and strains, as well as the shear strength of sections with great precision, being parameterized by several tested elements. As the use of this theory is not practical for manual calculations, the Response-2000 software, developed at the University of Toronto by Evan C. Bentz, was used. The program allows the analysis of beams and columns subject to moments, shear forces and axial loads, for any type of geometry, material properties and reinforcement arrangement, resulting in accurate responses of the behavior of the sections using MCFT as a basis.
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 | 0.002 | 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".