Shear Strength and Behaviour of High Strength Fibrous Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams (HSFRCDB) With Shear Reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve high strength fibrous reinforced concrete deep beams ( HSFRCDB ) were tested under two point loading . All the beams were reinforced with main steel reinforcement ratio ( p ) of about 2.4 percent to avoid flexural failure . The shear span - to - depth ratio ( a / d ) of the beams was about 2 and the volume fraction of the steel fibre was 0.5 percent . The beams were tested for different vertical stirrup nominal strength ( pfy ) , ranging from 0.15 to 4.44MPa , horizontal stirrup nominal strength ( Pfy ) , ranging from 0.4 to 3.63MPa and vertical and horizontal ( combination ) stirrup nominal strength ( pfy ) , ranging from 2.57 to 8.07MPa in addition to one beam without stirrups . Test results indicate that horizontal stirrups has little influence on the magnitude of the failure load . The test results of this investigation as well as those available in the literature ( 244 high and normal strength concrete deep beams with stirrups ) were compared with predictions based on the ( ACI , BS , Canadian and New Zealand Codes ) and works of other investigators ( Zustty , Siao and Sarsam ) and a Proposed Equation . The ACI , BS and Saio Equations are simultaneously conservative with relatively low COV values . The Proposed Equation has the lowest standard deviation , COV and conservative predictions .
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".