MODELLING OF RC BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS AND STRUCTURAL WALLS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deformation of beam-column joints may contribute significantly to drift of reinforced concrete (RC) frames. In addition, failure may occur in the joints due to cumulative concrete crushing from applied beam and column moments, bond slip of embedded bars or shear failure as in the case of existing frames with nonductile detailing. When subjected to earthquake loading, failure in RC structural wall is similar to failure of frame joints as it may occur due to cumulative crushing from high flexural stresses, bond slip failure of lap splice, shear failure or a combination of various mechanisms of failure. It is important to include these behavioural characteristics in a simple model that can be used in the analysis of RC frames and RC walls to predict their response under earthquake loading and determine their failure modes. Global macro models for the beam-column joint and for RC structural walls are developed. The proposed models represent shear and bond slip deformations as well as flexural deformations in the plastic hinge regions. The models are capable of idealising the potential failure mechanism due to crushing of concrete, bond slip or shear with allowance for the simultaneous progress in each mode. The model predictions are compared with available experimental data and good correlation is observed between analytical results and the test measurements.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it