A Comparative Study between the Analytical and Experimental Deflection Response of Corroded Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper involves a comparative experimental and analytical investigation on the deflection behavior of corroded reinforced concrete simply supported beams.For this aim, two beams specimens of different dimensions are subjected to a lab-controlled environment to stimulate the effect of corrosion on their deflection values and two other beams of the same dimensions are kept intact as control beams.The impressed current technique is used for accelerating corrosion in beams for different periods of exposure.This has led to a different amount of corrosion in each beam.The load deflection variation of all the corroded and control beams is represented next when all beams are tested for bending until failure.On a parallel hand, an analytical attempt is run to determine the load deflection behavior using a simple mathematical modeling.The analytical approach involves the use of the modified deflection equations taking into account the amount of corrosion induced, the degradation in bond strength, and the resulting slippage effect in the beam.In both approaches, the corrosion phenomenon is shown to clearly affect the deflection behavior of the reinforced concrete beam.It is also noticed that a good agreement is achieved when identifying the analytical deflection value in simply supported reinforced concrete corroded beams in compare to the experimental acquired ones with some restrictions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".