Effect of Corrosion Location and Transverse Reinforcement on Flexural-Ductile Response of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern about premature ageing and deterioration of reinforced concrete (RC) structures primarily stems from reinforcement corrosion.The reinforcement corrosion not only reduces the effective cross-section of reinforcing bars but also causes a severe reduction in the structural performance and service life of RC structures.This study aims to analyze the effect of varying corrosion levels on the load-bearing ability of RC beams configured with varying amounts of transverse reinforcement.The idea pertinent to this study is to develop and validate a 3D finite element numerical model of RC beams and subsequently simulate the corrosion deterioration to assess the effect of corrosion deterioration on the flexural response of RC beams.The beam models have been analyzed with a four-point simply supported bending flexural test.For concrete-steel interaction simulation, the cohesive surface interaction method proved to be most suitable as the results aligned well with the analytical results.Loss of bond in concrete-rebar interface due to decrease in mechanical interlock is calculated.The concrete Damage Plasticity model is adopted for calculating concrete's confined and unconfined strength in tension and compression.A parametric study is also performed to investigate varying corrosion percentages on residual capacity, stiffness, energy dissipation and behaviour of corroded beams.Flexural strength response due to spacing of transverse reinforcements as per different Indian standard codes is analyzed.Spalling stress is calculated analytically and used in simulation data for more precise results.The results indicate a notable reduction in loaddeflection behaviour due to concrete spalling, deterioration of rebars ribs, loss in mechanical interlock mechanism and yield strength.The structure undergoes an absolute brittle failure at very high corrosion levels due to a complete steel-concrete bond loss.A good correlation between the developed FE model and experimental load-deflection curves was observed, with variability in ultimate load-bearing capacities of less than 5% for all the cases.
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".