A Study of the Structural Behavior of Recycled-Concrete Haunched Beams with Web Opening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural behavior of Reinforced Concrete Haunched Beams (RCHBs) was investigated in this study. One prismatic control beam and fourteen Haunched Beams (HBs) were used in the experimental test and numerical analysis. The variables considered are Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) ratio which is taken as 0, 30 %, and 60 %, opening shape (square and circular with the same area of 4560 mm2), and haunch angle (α) of 6.34° and 9.46°. The samples of dimensions (1750x200x300) mm were tested under a two-point load. The samples were simulated numerically using the Abaqus/CAE tool. The experimental outcomes show that using 30% RCA decreased the resistance by 8.24% - 26.45% compared with the control sample. While at 60% RCA, the resistance decreased by 16.35% - 34.71%. HBs with α=6.34° give a strength quite close to the control beam (PN) by 1.93%, while α=9.46° decreases the strength by 12.94% compared with PN. Compared with the solid beam, square holes in HBs provide a strength reduction range of 5.83% - 18.79% for α=6.34° and α=9.46°, respectively. The beams with circular apertures have a resistance decrease of about 3.43% - 14.70%, which corresponds to α=6.34° and α=9.46°. The numerical findings were 8.41% of the experimental data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".