MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093921777 · doi:10.1139/l08-064

Available plastic rotation in continuous high-strength concrete beams

2008· article· en· W2093921777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricardo do Carmo, Sérgio M.R. Lopes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de Coimbra
KeywordsEurocodeStructural engineeringPlastic hingeUltimate tensile strengthReinforcementBeam (structure)Ductility (Earth science)HingeMoment (physics)Materials scienceRedistribution (election)EngineeringComposite materialCreepPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program was formulated to study moment redistribution in continuous high-strength concrete beams. The evaluation of ductility is important for this type of beam as, for high-strength concrete, the ductility decreases as the concrete strength increases. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the critical sections are able to develop appreciable plastic rotations to justify the application of a linear elastic analysis with moment redistribution. This work specifically examined the influence of the tensile reinforcement ratio and the transverse reinforcement ratio on the rotation capacity of plastic hinges. The moment redistribution obtained experimentally is compared with the guidelines recommended in Eurocode 2, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, and ACI 318. The results show that ACI 318 recommendations for linear analysis with moment redistribution are too conservative and that the predictions, according to Eurocode 2 and CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, agree with experimental evidence.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207