Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study was undertaken of selected computational methods for predicting the strength determined from more than 500 physical tests of rectangular, tied structural concrete columns available in the literature. The study included 354 reinforced concrete and 150 composite steel–concrete columns. The computational methods compared were those of CSA A23.3-94 and Eurocode 2 for reinforced concrete and those of CSA A23.3-94 and Eurocode 4 for composite columns. The physical tests used for comparison were conducted on columns that were braced, pinned at both ends, subjected to short-term loads, and constructed using normal-density concrete with a compressive strength between approximately 17 and 57 MPa. Major variables included the concrete strength, the end eccentricity ratio, the slenderness ratio, the longitudinal reinforcing steel index for reinforced concrete or the structural steel index for composite columns, and the transverse reinforcement (tie/hoop) volumetric ratio. The study provided insights into the reliability of the computational methods examined. Recommendations for improving the CSA A23.3-94 procedure for the design of reinforced concrete and composite steel–concrete columns are also presented.Key words: columns, composite construction, computations, physical tests, reinforced concrete, reliability, strength.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".