MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shear Strength Model for Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns

2004· article· en· W2046302510 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Halil Sezen, Jack P. Moehle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Washington
KeywordsStructural engineeringShear (geology)Shear strength (soil)Ductility (Earth science)Compressive strengthTransverse planeMaterials scienceReinforced concreteReinforcementGeotechnical engineeringColumn (typography)GeologyComposite materialEngineeringCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parameters affecting the shear strength of reinforced concrete columns having a rectangular cross section and light transverse reinforcement are investigated using data from numerous column tests. A new model is proposed to predict the column shear strength based on theoretical formulations and experimental evidence. The proposed shear strength equation includes contributions from the concrete and transverse reinforcement. Primary parameters in the shear strength model are the column cross-sectional dimensions, concrete compressive strength, column aspect ratio, axial load, and displacement ductility demand. The proposed model is compared with other shear strength models using the available column test data and is shown to result in improved accuracy. A conservative shear strength model for use in design and assessment is proposed based on statistical evaluation of computed and actual shear strengths.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations506
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207