MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001173341 · doi:10.1139/l08-105

Equivalent uniform moment diagram factor for structural concrete columns

2009· article· en· W2001173341 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Timo K. Tikka, Sher Ali Mirza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureMoment (physics)Structural engineeringBending momentDiagramColumn (typography)BendingRowMathematicsGeometryEngineeringPhysicsComputer scienceStatisticsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The equivalent uniform bending moment diagram factor (C m ) was introduced into design practice to eliminate the need for extensive calculations, based on the solution to a differential equation, to compute the effect of moment gradient, along the column height, caused by unequal column end moments. The expression currently in use in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A23.3 standard is a simplified equation based on the elastic behaviour of columns, and does not include the inelastic material behaviour of structural concrete. This study was conducted to investigate the influence of different variables on C m of slender, tied, reinforced concrete columns, and composite steel–concrete columns in which steel sections are encased in concrete, and also to examine existing expressions for C m . Approximately, 38 000 simulated columns, each with a different combination of specified values of variables, were used to generate the C m data. The columns studied were subjected to short-term ultimate loads and unequal end moments causing moment gradient in single curvature and double curvature bending. Two C m design equations are proposed in this paper. One of the proposed equations is a modified version of the current CSA design equation for C m .

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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