MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic Design of Concrete-Filled Circular Steel Bridge Piers

2003· article· en· W2068537015 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringEngineeringEurocodeLimit state designBridge (graph theory)Seismic analysisPierGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adequacy of the existing design provisions for concrete-filled steel pipes subjected to axial forces and flexure is reviewed by comparing the strengths predicted by the CAN/CSA-S16.1-M94, AISC LRFD 1994, and the Eurocode 4 1994 codes and standards against experimental data from a number of investigators. New proposed design equations are then developed, in a format compatible with North American practice. The new equations, based on a simple plasticity model calibrated using experimental data, are shown to provide improved correlation between predicted strength and experimental data. This paper provides information and data in support of the proposed design equations, which have already been implemented in the 2001 edition of the CSA-S16-01 “limit state design of steel structures” (CSA 2001) and in the “Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges” (MCEER/ATC 2003).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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