Ductility and linear analysis with moment redistribution in reinforced high-strength concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evaluation of the ductility of reinforced concrete beams is very important, since it is essential to avoid a fragile collapse of the structure by ensuring adequate deformation at the ultimate limit state. One of the procedures used to quantify ductility is based on deformations, namely, the plastic rotation capacity. Knowledge of the plastic rotation capacity of certain regions of the structure is important for a plastic analysis or a linear analysis with moment redistribution. An experimental program is described in this article. It is composed of 10 tests designed to study the moment redistribution and ductility of continuous high-strength concrete beams. Particular care was given to analysing how the tensile reinforcement ratio and the transverse reinforcement ratio influence the plastic rotation capacity of the beams. A comparative study was carried out on several codes related to the moment redistribution permitted and the experimental findings. It was found that some of the recommendations are unsafe. It was also found that high-strength concrete beams, when properly designed, have enough deformation capacity to be used in plastic analysis.Key words: structural concrete, plastic rotation, moment redistribution, high-strength concrete.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".