Fatigue Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Temperature Differentials at Room and Low Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the fatigue behavior of reinforced concrete beams at low temperatures compared to similar beams tested in fatigue at room temperature. Four large-scale steel reinforced beams (200 mm x 400 mm x 4200 mm) were fabricated and tested under cyclic load to failure. This study showed that the fatigue life of the reinforced concrete improved at low temperature and this improvement was much more pronounced when shear reinforcement was not present. In fact, low temperature changed the mode of failure of the reinforced concrete beams without stirrups from shear to flexural fatigue failure as a result of the higher shear strength and stiffness of the reinforced concrete, the lower number of cracks with smaller widths, and improved fatigue properties of steel at low temperature. The results showed that the fatigue life of the reinforced concrete beam without shear reinforcement at room temperature primarily depended on the concrete and concrete to steel bond while fatigue lives of the other beams depended on the stresses in the tensile reinforcement. The findings of this study showed that the contribution of concrete to the performance of the beam under either static or cyclic load becomes more pronounced at low temperature.
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".