Equivalent Moment of Inertia Based on Integration of Curvature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the benefits of computing deflection with an equivalent moment of inertia based on integration of curvature to account for changes in member stiffness along the span. Results are evaluated for steel and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced (FRP-reinforced) concrete flexural members with different loading arrangements and support conditions. Closed-form solutions of integrated expressions for deflection are expressed in terms of an equivalent moment of inertia Ie′ and compared to deflection computed with an effective moment of inertia Ie based on the stiffness at the critical section. Results from this comparison are validated with measured deflections from an experimental database for FRP-reinforced concrete. Current code-related approaches are also compared to the experimental database. It is shown herein that the use of an integration-based expression for the moment of inertia can lead to improved prediction of deflection, though the use of an effective moment of inertia based on member stiffness at the critical section gives a reasonably conservative estimate of deflection in many cases. The benefits of taking account of changes in stiffness along the member span are more evident when low reinforcing ratios are used in combination with FRP reinforcement, and use of the integration-based expression Ie′ may be warranted when deflection control is critical in such cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it