MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005091653 · doi:10.12989/sss.2011.7.5.329

Seismic behaviour of repaired superelastic shape memory alloy reinforced concrete beam-column joint

2011· article· en· W2005091653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Structures and Systems · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShape-memory alloyStructural engineeringPlastic hingeSMA*Materials scienceHingeReinforced concreteBeam (structure)Joint (building)DissipationDeformation (meteorology)ResidualComposite materialComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale earthquakes pose serious threats to infrastructure causing substantial damage and large residual deformations. Superelastic (SE) Shape-Memory-Alloys (SMAs) are unique alloys with the ability to undergo large deformations, but can recover its original shape upon stress removal. The purpose of this research is to exploit this characteristic of SMAs such that concrete Beam-Column Joints (BCJs) reinforced with SMA bars at the plastic hinge region experience reduced residual deformation at the end of earthquakes. Another objective is to evaluate the seismic performance of SMA Reinforced Concrete BCJs repaired with flowable Structural-Repair-Concrete (SRC). A <TEX>$\frac{3}{4}$</TEX>-scale BCJ reinforced with SMA rebars in the plastic-hinge zone was tested under reversed cyclic loading, and subsequently repaired and retested. The joint was selected from an RC building located in the seismic region of western Canada. It was designed and detailed according to the NBCC 2005 and CSA A23.3-04 recommendations. The behaviour under reversed cyclic loading of the original and repaired joints, their load-storey drift, and energy dissipation ability were compared. The results demonstrate that SMA-RC BCJs are able to recover nearly all of their post-yield deformation, requiring a minimum amount of repair, even after a large earthquake, proving to be smart structural elements. It was also shown that the use of SRC to repair damaged BCJs can restore its full capacity.

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.

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 score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.174 · 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