Influence of Different Dapped-End Reinforcement Configurations on Structural Behavior of RC Dapped-End Beam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe damage or collapse of reinforced concrete dapped-end beams (RC-DEBs) may occur during the service life. The collapse of the Concorde overpass structure in Laval, Quebec, Canada, in 2006 revealed the causes of collapse, i.e., insufficient shear strength (no stirrups), misplacement of hanger reinforcement, etc. In addition, the inspection report of RC half-joint bridges in England until 2018 expressed that damages or failures of half-joint structures can be attributed to the poor condition of structures or non-compliant reinforcement detailing. These conditions exhibited how important it is to understand the proper detailing of dapped-end reinforcement. To date, some studies have performed investigations on the effect of inadequate dapped-end reinforcement on the structural behavior of DEBs. However, the results of the research to date were not yet complete enough to disclose the role of each group of dapped-end reinforcement in resisting the working load. Therefore, this study was carried out to investigate the main role of each group of dapped-end reinforcement separately on the structural performance of RC-DEBs. Eight large-scaled RC-DEBs (with sizes of 1800 mm length, 120 mm width and 250 mm height) were prepared, cast and cured. All DEB specimens were tested under the three-point loading up to failure. To localize the effect of shear failure, the shear span-depth ratio (av⁄d) of 1.43 was set. Test results exhibited that arrangement of a specific group of dapped-end reinforcement separately affects the structural performance of DEBs significantly. The diagonal reinforcement (DR) group was found to be more effective than the vertical hanger reinforcement (HR) group. The failure load capacity of the DR group (DEB-18) achieved 0.29 times that of the control beam (DEB-3). Meantime, the nib flexure reinforcement (NFR) group demonstrated the most important role in the structural performance of DEBs compared to other dapped-end reinforcement groups. The failure load capacity of the NFR group (DEB-39) reached 0.62 times that of the control beam, while rupture deflection of the NFR group also exhibited the highest value than other groups, i.e., 0.62 times that of the control beam. In addition, analysis results of rosette strain gages (RSGs) data indicated that regions near to re-entrant corner and its vicinity experienced the highest stress concentration factor (SCF) compared to other places of the beams. These regions were more susceptible to experiencing the first crack, progressive crack, damage or failure first than other regions of DEBs. The greater the value of SCF, the greater the probability of collapse occurring in the related structural elements, which is also followed by a lower failure load capacity. DEB-1 (without dapped-end reinforcement) has the highest SCF (205.68), and the lowest failure load capacity (12.58 kN), whilst DEB-3 (with the complete dapped-end reinforcement) has the lowest SCF (79.62), but the highest failure load capacity (105.26 kN). Obviously, DEB-3 can withstand the working load properly. Its adequate dapped-end reinforcement is able to accommodate and distribute the high stress flows in the dapped-end region properly, which causes the SCF value to decrease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".