Improved Equations for the Torsional Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams for Codes of Practice Based on the Space Truss Analogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design codes provide the necessary tools to check the torsional strength of reinforced concrete (RC) members. However, some researchers have pointed out that code equations still need improvement. This study presents a review and a comparative analysis of the calculation procedures to predict the torsional strength of RC beams from some reference design codes, namely the Russian, American, European, and Canadian codes for RC structures. The reliability and accuracy of the normative torsional strengths are checked against experimental results from a broad database incorporating 202 RC rectangular beams tested under pure torsion and collected from the literature. The results show that both the readability and accuracy of the codes' equations should be improved. Based on a correlation study between the experimental torsional strengths, and geometrical and mechanical properties of the beams, refined yet simple equations are proposed to predict torsional strength. It is demonstrated that the proposed formulation is characterized by a significant improvement over the reference design codes. The efficiency of the proposed formulae is also assessed against another equation earlier proposed in the literature, and an improvement is noted as well. From the results, it can be concluded that the proposed equations in this study can contribute to a more accurate and economical design for practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".