Designing thin-walled composite-filled beams
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
Thin-walled composite-filled beams consist of a cold-formed open steel box section with an infill of concrete. The strength of such beams is limited by the compression buckling capacity of the steel plate at the top of the open box section. Enhancement of strength is possible by stiffening the compression steel plates at the open end of the box section with various modes of interface connections or strength-enhancement devices. In this paper, the effect of various strength-enhancement devices is correlated to the generation of shear bond between steel and concrete using both experimental and design-oriented analyses. Flexural capacity of such beams can be derived based on either yielding or buckling of steel depending on the generated steel–concrete interface shear bond simulating full or partial shear connections. Design equations are developed and their performance is validated through test results of 24 experimental beams with five different modes of strength-enhancement device. Design procedures for such beams are illustrated with calculated design examples. Such simple design procedures can be adopted in the actual design of thin-walled composite beams with various modes of strength-enhancement devices in practical applications.
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