Zum Tragverhalten von Stahlbetonbauteilen unter Torsionsbeanspruchung
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Master Thesis analyses the load-bearing capacity of reinforced concrete due to torsional load.This type of load does not receive as much attention as other loads since it has a comparatively low importance in structural engineering.Nevertheless, the torsional load can play a significant role in bridge construction.Thus, it is essential to examine the torsional load and its diverse calculation models from several national and international standards of construction in detail.Therefore, the calculation models Austrian NORM B4700, Swiss SIA 262, European Eurocode 2 with its national Annex of Austria and Germany, Model Code 2010, American ACI 218M-11, Canadian CSA A23.3-04 and Japanese JSCE 15 are investigated, compared and evaluated in this thesis.Firstly, the thesis provides a brief introduction about 'torsion', followed by a report on selected calculation models found in specialist literature as well as calculation models of different national and international standards.Moreover, 180 experiments with torsional loads are recalculated via the nine previously described models.Regarding this process, the torsional moments of failure documented in each of the 180 experiments, serve as reference value for the calculated torsional moment of failure by each standard.Furthermore, to realize this recalculation, several formulas of the standards of construction have to be transformed.In a next step, the results of this recalculation are compared to the results of the experiments and among each other.Subsequently, a general evaluation of the nine codes is elaborated as well as an analysis of influencing factors including concrete strength, the amount of reinforcement and the cross-section design.Hence, the suitability of the approach to reproduce reinforced beams with torsional load is shown.Finally, it is demonstrated that the most precise results are achieved with the Austrian, German and European models, followed by the American, Canadian and Japanese counterparts.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it