Structural behaviour of indeterminate continuous reinforced concrete beams with shear reinforcement and asymmetric loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite statically indeterminate continuous reinforced concrete beams being commonly used in most reinforced concrete structures, a limited number of studies have been conducted to explore their behaviour. In addition, there have been no studies that have investigated asymmetric loading ratios on multi-span continuous beams. To address this, two nominally identical indeterminate continuous reinforced concrete beams were tested, and their behaviour was evaluated using discrete and distributed sensing. The beams had two spans, were continuous across the central support, and had a point load applied at the centre of each span. The applied load on each span was increased at the same rate up to a service load of 200 kN (approximately 60 % of first yield). After that, the load on one span was held constant while the load on the other span was increased until failure. There was a 12 % difference in load carrying capacity despite the beams being nominally identical, which was thought to be due to the formation of a shear hinge in one of the beams. Crack development, which may have been influenced by shrinkage behaviour, may have played a role in the formation of the shear hinge. The Canadian concrete code (CSA A23.3) shear prediction, which predicted a ductile flexural failure, was found to be unconservative, with both beams being shear critical. The beam with the shear hinge had the lower test-to-predicted ratio of 0.72. • Tested reinforced concrete continuous beams with three supports and two spans. • 12 % difference in load carrying capacity despite being nominally identical beams. • Canadian reinforced concrete design code shear prediction may be unconservative. • Shear hinge prevented full central support moment capacity being achieved. • Cracking behaviour contributed to differences in ultimate behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".