MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032935900 · doi:10.1139/l03-087

Performance of double skin-profiled composite shear walls — experiments and design equations

2004· article· en· W2032935900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khandaker M. Anwar Hossain, H.D. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringStiffnessFinite element methodComposite numberDeflection (physics)Shear (geology)InfillComposite constructionBucklingShear wallEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel form of composite walling system consists of two skins of profiled steel sheeting with an infill of concrete. The knowledge of the behaviour of such walling under shear loading is important to use this system as shear elements in a steel framed building. Currently design provisions for this novel form of framed shear walling do not exist. This paper presents the results of tests on one-sixth scale models of the composite wall and its components, manufactured from very thin sheeting and microconcrete. The heavily instrumented small-scale tests provided information on the load–deflection response, strength, stiffness, strain condition, sheet–concrete interaction, and failure modes. Analytical models for the shear strength and stiffness of the wall are derived. The adequacy of design equations is validated through experimental results and finite element modelling.Key words: composite wall, design equation, profiled sheeting, shear strength, shear stiffness, strain, buckling, finite element, interface, microconcrete.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207