Behaviour and modelling of partial‐strength beam‐to‐column composite joints for seismic applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A refined component model is proposed to predict the inelastic monotonic response of exterior and interior beam‐to‐column joints for partial‐strength composite steel–concrete moment‐resisting frames. The joint typology is designed to exhibit ductile seismic response through plastic deformation developing simultaneously in the column web panel in shear, the bolted end‐plate connection, the column flanges in bending and the steel reinforcing bars in tension. The model can handle the large inelastic deformations consistent with high ductility moment‐resisting frames. Slip response between the concrete slab and the beams was taken into account. A fibre representation was adopted for the concrete slab to accurately capture the non‐uniform stress distribution and progressive crushing of the concrete at the interface between the concrete slab and the column flange. The model is validated against results from full‐scale subassemblages monotonic physical tests performed at the University of Pisa, Italy. A parametric study is presented to illustrate the capabilities of the model and the behaviour of the joints examined. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".