Effect of relative stiffness on moment redistribution in reinforced high-strength concrete beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moment redistribution in continuous concrete beams is primarily a structural aspect of behaviour, since it is a consequence of structural redundancy. However, the current design codes do not take this structural characteristic into consideration and therefore may not be reasonable when predicting the permissible moment redistribution. In this paper, moment redistribution in reinforced high-strength concrete (HSC) beams is analysed, focusing on the effect of relative stiffness represented by the structure-related parameter ρs2/ρs1 (where ρs1 and ρs2 are the tensile steel ratios over positive and negative moment regions, respectively). A numerical evaluation was conducted on two-span continuous beams made of HSC having a cylinder compressive strength of 90 MPa. A wide range of ρs2/ρs1 was produced by varying either ρs1 or ρs2 from 0·81% to 6·06%. The results show that the ρs2/ρs1 ratio is a critical parameter influencing the global moment redistribution behaviour. Modifications to the Canadian Standards Association and American Concrete Institute equations are proposed for calculating the moment redistribution at the ultimate state. By introducing the parameter ρs2/ρs1, the proposed modified equations are shown to have an excellent fit to the actual redistribution values.
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".