DIRECT SHEAR FAILURE DESIGN BASED ON THE SHEAR-FRICTION FAILURE MODEL AND THE PLASTIC SHEAR ENVELOPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The representation of shear failure along a plane in concrete elements, when subjected to stress normal to the plane, in the form of a failure envelope was first muted by Kupfer [1]. The idea was later introduced in a design format by the brothers Birkeland [2] when they introduced the shear-friction hypothesis. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code [3] subsequently adopted this design formulation for cases of direct shear in concrete elements in their 1971 Code update. The latest Canadian concrete design Code[4] has developed this theory into a fully fledged design procedure which can be applied to any concrete to concrete and even concrete to steel interface. It is particularly attractive when an unusual direct shear or punching type shear zone exists where the critical angle of the shear plane is not known and therefore becomes part of the solution procedure. The extension of the shear failure envelope into the range of high normal interface stresses beyond 25% of cube strength, where classical shear friction theory does not apply anymore, is of value when considering shear failure conditions in regions of high bending moments. This is also of particular interest in forensic investigations of shear failures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".