Skjærkapasitet av ultrahøyfast fiberarmert betong – verifikasjon av designstandard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultra High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) is a concrete that is still not in use in\nNorway. This is, as the name implies, a strong concrete, with high ductility from the fibres. To be able\nto use this concrete in Norway in the future, it is necessary to develop a national standard for\nUHPFRC. The concrete is in use in some countries, some of these are France, USA, Japan and Canada.\nThe French standard NF P18-710 is based on Eurocode 2, but it is customized for UHPFRC. The\nmethod to calculate the shear capacity is different, both because of the concrete and because of the\nuse of fibres. To calculate how much the fibres will affect the shear capacity of the composite\nmaterial, it is necessary to go through bending tests, and then do calculations from the test results.\nBoth the mean value of the post-cracking strength along the shear crack, which is based on the\nstress-crack opening curve, and the orientation factor K will have a crucial impact on the shear\ncapacity value from the fibres.\nThis is a master thesis written by three students at the University of Agder. The main goal of this\nthesis is to compare the calculated shear capacity from the french standard to the practical shear\ncapacity. This was done by exposing UHPFRC beams to bending tests, to measure the shear capacity.\nIt was not possible to compare the calculated values to the practical results as the beams collapsed\nbecause of moment capacity, and not shear capacity. Despite this, it is possible to assume that there\nare some insecurities in the formulas from the French standard. The reason for this assumption is\nthat the calculated shear capacity for a beam with only fibres as reinforcement is higher than the\nshear capacity for a beam that is reinforced with shear reinforcement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.021 |
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".