MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106238471 · doi:10.1139/l2012-004

Effects of detailing on panel zone seismic behaviour in special moment resisting frames with unequal beam depths

2012· article· en· W2106238471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roohollah Ahmady Jazany, Behrokh Hosseini Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
KeywordsBeam (structure)Structural engineeringMoment (physics)GeologySeismic analysisConnection (principal bundle)EngineeringFrame (networking)Seismic zoneGeotechnical engineeringSeismologyInduced seismicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Special moment resisting frames (SMRF) are commonly used as lateral-load resisting systems in seismic design. The results of recent studies have shown that the seismic performance of such frames can be improved by paying particular attention to the detailing of their panel zones (PZ) and beams. Panel zones with unequal beam depths appear to be a special case of connection detailing, which has not received sufficient attention so far and could lead to complications in everyday engineering practice. Some full-scale experiments of connections with unequal beam depths were performed, using different continuity plate arrangements (inclined and straight plates), and different corner clip lengths. A companion analytical study was also conducted, for which results have shown that the correct selection of inclined or straight continuity plates, with special detailing of the PZ, could keep the behaviour of the latter within safe margins. Such considerations could prevent the occurrence of failure in the PZ, and significantly improve the seismic resistance of SMRF with unequal beam depths.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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