Effects of shrinkage on tension stiffening and cracking in reinforced concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basic concepts of tension stiffening behaviour of reinforced concrete members under tension are reviewed, and different approaches to account for this behaviour are linked together. This includes a "load sharing" approach, where the average load carried by the cracked concrete is used to determine the post-cracking stressstrain response of concrete in tension, and a "tension stiffening strain" approach, which evaluates changes in member stiffness to obtain a reduction in member deformation by including the stiffening effect of the tension carried by concrete between cracks. Shrinkage strains are then included in an analysis of tension stiffening and the results of this analysis are validated with experimental data. The experimental study was carried out for symmetrically reinforced axial tension members having reinforcing percentages between 1% and 2% and shrinkage strain values up to 230 µε. Failure to account for initial member shortening caused by shrinkage leads to an apparent reduction in tension stiffening, which becomes more predominant as the percentage of reinforcement increases. Corrected results indicate that tension stiffening is independent of the reinforcing steel ratio, ρ (within the studied field for 1% < ρ < 2%) and continues to decrease during loading after cracking has stabilized. Test results are also compared with a number of proposals made by other researchers in the past. Prediction of crack widths based on results from axial tension member tests is not significantly affected by shrinkage.Key words: bond, cracking, crack widths, reinforced concrete, shrinkage, stress-strain response, tension, tension stiffening.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".