MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W168625530

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF INTERMEDIATE BEAMS IN STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALLS

2006· article· en· W168625530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diego López-García, Michel Bruneau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHingeStructural engineeringRoofShear wallSteel plate shear wallShear (geology)Span (engineering)Plastic hingeFoundation (evidence)Beam (structure)Nonlinear systemGeotechnical engineeringGeologySeismic loadingEngineeringPhysicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents some preliminary results of an ongoing research whose objective is to investigate the seismic behavior of intermediate beams (i.e., the beams other than those at the roof and foundation levels) in multi-story steel plate shear walls (SPSWs). Of primary interest is the determination of the strength level needed to avoid the formation of in-span plastic hinges, a relevant practical issue that has not been considered in past investigations. To attain this objective, the seismic response of different SPSW models was analyzed by performing linear and nonlinear analysis. The intermediate beams of the SPSW models were designed to resist: (I) forces imposed by gravity loads only; (II) forces determined by the ASCE 7 load combinations; and (III) forces imposed by fully yielded plates. For comparison purposes, SPSW models designed according to the Canadian Standard CAN/CSA S16-01 were considered as well. It is concluded that intermediate beams designed according to criteria I and II are prone to inspan plastic hinges and to excessive plastic deformations. It was also found that, while in-span plastic hinges do not appear in the intermediate beams of the CAN/CSA S16-01 models, they do appear in the roof and foundation beams of these models when a collapse mechanism develops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207