Design Of Punching Shear Of R.C. Footings Using American And European Codes: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study evaluate the various selected design codes using an intensive collection of reinforced concrete (RC) footings, which were tested under punching shear.Three design codes were selected including ACI 318-19, EC2, and second generation of Euro code (PrEC2).The effect of the main parameters on the safety of the punching shear capacity calculated using selected methods was examined.It was found that the PrEC2 strength predictions are the closer to measurements and the most reliable.The safety of the punching shear predicted using the ACI is directly proportional with the flexure reinforcement ratio While the safety predicted using the EC2, and PrEC2 design codes is inversely proportional.This is due to the EC2, and PrEC2 design codes considered the flexure reinforcement ratio while the ACI neglected its effect.The spring simulation of the subsoil, provide capacity compared to the sand box model with respect to those obtained experimentally.
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".