MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129172093 · doi:10.1193/1.1503343

Simple Nonlinear Flexural Stiffness Model for Concrete Structural Walls

2002· article· en· W2129172093 on OpenAlexaff
Perry Adebar, Ahmed M. M. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringCurvatureStiffeningCrackingStiffnessFlexural strengthNonlinear systemBilinear interpolationBending momentFlexural rigidityBendingTension (geology)Bending stiffnessMoment (physics)Geotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsComposite materialGeometryCompression (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trilinear bending moment–curvature model is proposed for the nonlinear static (pushover) analysis of concrete walls. To account for the effect of cracking on the flexural stiffness of concrete walls in a simple yet accurate way, the elastic portion of the bending moment–curvature relationship is modeled as bilinear. To account for the influence of cyclic loading on tension stiffening of cracked concrete, the concept of upper‐bound response for a previously uncracked wall, and lower‐bound response for a severely cracked wall is introduced. To validate the proposed model, the results of a large‐scale test on a slender concrete wall are compared with predictions from the model. The application of the proposed model in a pushover analysis of a 131‐m‐(430‐ft) high coupled‐wall structure demonstrates the importance of accurately modeling the nonlinear flexural stiffness of concrete walls.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207