MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953118632 · doi:10.1139/l11-030

Bond strength in concrete filled built-up steel tube columns with tab stiffeners

2011· article· en· W1953118632 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clotilda Petrus, Azmi Ibrahim, Joe Davylyn Nyuin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaUniversiti Teknologi MARA
KeywordsBond strengthStructural engineeringDuctility (Earth science)Materials scienceComposite materialCompressive strengthComposite numberCube (algebra)Composite constructionBondSquare (algebra)Tube (container)EngineeringLayer (electronics)Adhesive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apart from strength and ductility, adequate bond between steel and concrete at the interface is important in concrete filled steel tube (CFST) columns to ensure a composite action. One way of improving the bond strength of a CFST column is introducing internal stiffeners. This paper presents an experimental investigation into the bond strength of a CFST column with tab stiffeners by conducting a push out test. Twenty-one square specimens of sides 200 mm × 200 mm, fabricated from 2 mm thick mild steel sheeting were tested in two series. The first series considered the variation in the tab spacing along the stiffeners, namely 75, 100, 150, and 300 mm, while in the second series, the concrete cube compressive strengths were 36, 40, and 50 MPa. The bond strength at the concrete–steel interface was found to increase with decreasing tab spacing. In-filling the tubes with higher strength concrete had also resulted in an increase in the bond strength by up to an average of 40%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207