MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390597397 · doi:10.30684/etj.24.5.6

Shear Design of High and Normal Rc Beams Without Web Reinforcement

2005· article· en· W4390597397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaiss F. Sarsam, Nabil Al - Bayati

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering and Technology Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear (geology)Reinforced concreteStructural engineeringReinforcementCompressive strengthMaterials scienceShear strength (soil)Beam (structure)Composite materialGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work examines the major parameters that influence the shear strength of reinforced concrete ( RC ) beams without web reinforcement . These include the shear span / depth ( a / d ) ratio ( between 2.0 and 7.1 ) , concrete compressive strength f . ( between 20.0 MPa and 101.9 MPa ) , the longitudinal steel ratio ( p ) ( between 0.00251 and 0.06620 ) , and beam size ( bnd ) . 271 RC beams failing in shear available in the literature are used to study the effect of the indicated major parameters on the strength of Normal Strength Concrete ( NSC ) and High Strength Concrete ( HSC ) . Proposed design equations are compared with the existing shear design relationships of the ACI Code 318M - 02 , BS 8110 , Canadian Code , New Zealand Code and Zsutty equation to predict the shear capacity of RC beams . For all methods considered , the ratio of shear strength of beams VTTEST to the design shear resistance VrDES is calculated . The proposed design equations lead to safe design with a low coefficient of variation ( COV ) . This COV is only 18.6 percent which is significantly less than values obtained for other methods ( ranging between 28.5 to 43.3 percent ) .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering and Technology JournalSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207