Behavior and Flexural Strength of Composite Steel-Reactive Powder Concrete Decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of composite structures employing reactive powder concrete (RPC) has received limited attention.The special components of RPC may affect interface response, crack distribution, and shear transfer mechanisms.The current study investigates the experimental behavior of simply supported composite decks that consisted of steel sections and RPC under axial loading.The influence of parameters such as the thickness of the concrete deck, the number of studs, and the contribution of thread bolts and angle sections as shear connectors was investigated.It was found that the value of the ultimate load increases as the thickness of the RPC deck increases.On the other hand, a reduction in the relative end slip was noticed with the increase of deck thickness.The contribution of increasing the number of studs in enhancing the behavior of composite structures was clear.Moreover, using an insufficient number of shear connectors caused the development of longitudinal cracks along the top surface of the deck.Results showed that employing transversal channels as shear connectors had a positive impact on reducing end slip and preventing longitudinal cracks.On the other hand, using threaded bolts may cause local slip around the bolts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".