Comparison Between Shear Strength of Chemically Based Self-Consolidating Concrete and Conventional Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental investigation was conducted to study the shear strength of full-scale beams constructed with both chemically-based self-consolidating concrete (SCC) and conventional concrete (CC). This experimental program consisted of 16 beams (12 without shear reinforcing and four with shear reinforcing in the form of stirrups). Additionally, three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios were evaluated within the test matrix. The beams were tested under a simply supported four-point loading condition. The experimental shear strengths of the beams were compared with the shear provisions of both U.S. and international design codes (U.S. [ACI-318 and AASHTO LRFD], Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan) as well as a shear database of CC specimens. Furthermore, statistical data analyses (both parametric and non-parametric) were performed to evaluate whether or not there is any statistically significant difference between the shear strength of the SCC and the CC beams. Results of these statistical tests show there is no significant difference between the shear strength of the SCC and CC for the beams tested in this investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".