Structural Behavior of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Continuous Beam with Hybrid Reinforcement under Monotonic and Repeated Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the Structural behavior of recycled aggregate concrete continuous beam with hybrid reinforcement under monotonic and repeated loads.The experimental work includes testing 15 continuous beams, two specimens without recycled aggregate, and other beams cast with recycled aggregate.One specimen with recycled aggregate containing steel fiber was treated as a reference for specimens reinforced with FRP.Three specimens were cast with 20%, 40%, and 70% replacement ratios of recycled aggregate.GFRP, CFRP, and BFRP reinforced the other three specimens, containing 40% recycled aggregate and 1% steel fiber volume fraction.Three specimens were reinforced with hybrid reinforcement (steel and FRP bar), including 40% recycled aggregate and steel fiber.The last three beams were reinforced with hybrid reinforcement and tested under repeated load.The specimens' dimensions are 225mm in depth, 150mm in width, and 3000mm in length, consisting of two equal spans of 1400mm for each span.The test variables are the replacement ratio of recycled aggregate, changing the reinforcement type, loading form, and adding steel fiber.The test results showed that using recycled aggregate led to a slight decrease in ultimate load up to 5.38%.Using steel fiber led to an increase in the ultimate load by up to 10%.All specimens with recycled aggregate and reinforced with FRP bars showed a decrease in ultimate load by up to 47%.Using hybrid reinforcement led to an increase in ultimate load up to 53.8%.The specimens tested under repeated load showed a decrease in ultimate load by up to 15%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".