Collapse of a nonductile concrete frame: Evaluation of analytical models
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
Abstract The current paper presents nonlinear dynamic analyses that simulate shaking table tests performed on a four‐column reinforced concrete frame described in a companion paper. The frame consists of two ductile and two nonductile columns interconnected by a stiff beam. In order to validate existing analytical models for nonductile concrete columns, a blind comparison of the test data and results of the analysis is performed. The analysis adequately captures the drift response and correctly detects collapse of the structure; however, strength degradation due to cover spalling is exaggerated in the analytical model. Refinement of the analysis by changing the concrete cover model results in an excellent agreement between the test data and analysis results at the initiation of shear failure and collapse of the frame. The experimental data are further compared with lumped‐plasticity nonlinear models used in engineering practice. The results suggest that the sudden strength degradation used in ASCE/SEI 41‐06 results in an exaggerated estimate of the displacement demands. It is also observed that ignoring the strength degradation, using an elastic‐perfectly‐plastic model, provides a good estimate of the displacement demands when strength degradation is not severe. Copyright © 2008 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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