Shear Performance of RC Deep Beams with High-Strength Reinforcing Steel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased need to construct megastructures such as long-span bridges and skyscrapers, there has been significant development in high-strength reinforcement for these structures. In line with this trend, specific provisions in design specifications such as ACI 318-19 and the 2020 AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) have allowed the application of high-strength reinforcing bars with yield strength reaching 689 MPa (100 ksi). However, high-strength reinforcing bars are restricted in discontinuity regions of a member, which are designed using the strut-and-tie method. This study aims to evaluate the application of high-strength steel bars in concrete beams following the current design codes. For this purpose, four large-scale rectangular deep beam shear tests were carried out on concrete beams reinforced with high-strength longitudinal and web reinforcement. The high-strength longitudinal reinforcement was reduced in proportion to the strength ratio between normal- and high-strength reinforcement, and its load-carrying capacity was evaluated under these conditions. Additionally, high-strength web reinforcement was utilized to evaluate the adequacy of the current web reinforcement ratio for crack control. The shear capacity and cracks width were monitored to assess the effect of high-strength steel on deep beam behavior and the applicability of current design codes such as ACI 318-19 and AASHTO LRFD (2020). The results demonstrate that the strut-and-tie method in current design codes effectively estimate the shear capacity of deep beams reinforced with high-strength steel for both longitudinal and web reinforcement. Furthermore, the design provisions for the web reinforcement ratio for crack control are also valid.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".