Strength Prediction of Corbels Using Strut-and-Tie Model Analysis
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
A strut-and-tie based method intended for determining the load-carrying capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) corbels is presented in this paper. In addition to the normal strut-and-tie force equilibrium requirements, the proposed model is based on secant stiffness formulation, incorporating strain compatibility and constitutive laws of cracked RC. The proposed method evaluates the load-carrying capacity as limited by the failure modes associated with nodal crushing, yielding of the longitudinal principal reinforcement, as well as crushing or splitting of the diagonal strut. Load-carrying capacity predictions obtained from the proposed analysis method are in a better agreement with corbel test results of a comprehensive database, comprising 455 test results, compiled from the available literature, than other existing models for corbels. This method is illustrated to provide more accurate estimates of behaviour and capacity than the shear-friction based approach implemented by the ACI 318-11, the strut-and-tie provisions in different codes (American, Australian, Canadian, Eurocode and New Zealand).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it