Evaluation of ductility and allowable moment redistribution in reinforced concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designers can use moment redistribution to reduce the design bending moment envelope. Code provisions for moment redistribution are not entirely rational. They neglect the effects of important parameters on permissible moment redistribution and can be very conservative. To establish a realistic limit on permissible moment redistribution, one needs a rational model for predicting the plastic rotation capacity of critical sections (plastic hinges). This paper presents a model for computing the plastic rotation capacity, θp, and permissible moment redistribution, β, in reinforced concrete beams. Important parameters, affecting θp and β, are identified and incorporated in the model. The model is validated against experimental results and shows good agreement. A comparison of the moment redistribution limits is made between the model and CSA A23.3-94. Although the code provides a reasonable estimate of β for unfavourable combinations of parameters, the code can be very conservative when conditions are favourable for moment redistribution. Deeper beams with closely spaced stirrups allow significantly more moment redistribution than that predicted by the code.Key words: moment redistribution, ductility, plastic rotation capacity, bond-slip, shear cracking, reinforced concrete beams, c/d, ultimate concrete strain.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".