A review of the world experience in full-scale testing of existing reinforced concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I ntroduction. Domestic and foreign experience of full-scale tests is analyzed. The retrospective of development of standards for conducting full-scale tests in Russia and the USSR is presented. The review of the world regulatory documents regarding the requirements for conducting full-scale tests of structures is carried out, which showed insufficient research of this question both in our country and abroad. The obtained review can be the basis for the development of the national standard of the Russian Federation for conducting full-scale tests. Materials and methods. Analytical review. Results. The state of the issue and the application of stress tests (full-scale tests) in our country, as well as in Germany, the USA, Italy, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and other countries are shown. The minimum requirements for the target test load during testing, the loading mode and acceptance criteria for the experimental assessment of the load-bearing capacity of existing load-bearing structures specified in various standards are given. Specialized criteria for the acceptance of load-bearing structures, such as the permanency ratio and deviation from linearity index, mentioned in individual standards, are analyzed. Conclusions. The similarity of common approaches and the lack of unified requirements for conducting this type of research and evaluating their results are noted. The necessity to develop a national standard of the Russian Federation for full-scale tests of erected reinforced concrete structures is considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".