Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a research program at McGill University, involving the testing of eight full-scale deep beams, this research studies the response of four full-scale deep beams that were designed in accordance with the strut-and-tie model provisions of the CSA Standard A23.3 (2004). All of the deep beams had a centre-to-centre spacing of 2000 mm between the two supports, 1000 mm in height, and 350 mm in thickness. They were simply supported with an application of a single point load at midspan. The total length of the four beams varies depending on the type of anchorage being used. The four anchorage details that were considered in this study include a straight development length, a standard 90 degree hook, friction-welded 1.5 in. (38 mm) diameter circular headed bars and friction-welded 2 in. (50 mm) diameter headed bars. The dimensions of the loading pad and the bearing pads were 200 mm (and 300 mm) and 100 mm, respectively. All beams were reinforced with two layers of five 15M bars forming the tension tie reinforcement. El-Jorf (2006) carried out the testing and analysis of the other four full-scale deep beams in this overall research program. This research project demonstrated that providing friction-welded circular headed bars capable of developing the full yield strength at the head results in shorter beams and improved response compared to straight bar embedment details. Providing a lead-in length as well as friction-welded circular headed bars, with reduced head size, provides improved ductility compared to the straight bar embedment and compared to the hooked anchorage. This research also shows that benefits of confinement pressures at the supports can increase the bar stress although the provided development length is below code requirements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".