MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081411114 · doi:10.1139/l09-098

Total expected cost design method for reinforced concrete members based on current Canadian code provisions

2009· article· en· W2081411114 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lisa R. Feldman, Paul N. Christensen, Mohamed Boulfiza, G A Sparks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsSlabContext (archaeology)Structural engineeringReinforced concreteReliability (semiconductor)Life-cycle cost analysisCorrosionDesign methodsComputer scienceCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringReliability engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliability-based provisions for the design and evaluation of reinforced concrete members provided in the National building code of Canada and Canadian standard A23.3 are integrated with a corrosion deterioration model and a life-cycle cost analysis. The resulting model offers a simplified total expected cost design method that can be readily implemented by practicing engineers. The model is illustrated in the context of a 400 mm deep, 4.0 m long steel reinforced concrete cantilever slab that serves as a balcony adjacent to a party room of a condominium building. Nine design options for the slab were assessed. The near-surface chloride concentration and the oxygen concentration in the pore solution are the only two parameters that influence the selection of the balcony slab design. The design option with moderate concrete compressive strength and the largest clear cover considered was shown to be the most cost effective design regardless of the analysis method considered. Other model applications are also briefly presented.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207