MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disturbed Stress Field Model for Reinforced Concrete: Validation

2001· article· en· W2200470658 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringStress fieldStress (linguistics)Field (mathematics)Shear (geology)Principal stressCompression (physics)Slip (aerodynamics)Shear stressMaterials scienceMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMathematicsPhysicsFinite element methodEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of analytical investigations are presented supporting the disturbed stress field model as a viable conceptual model for describing the behavior of cracked reinforced concrete elements. The theory is shown to be phenomenologically more correct, relative to typical fixed-crack or rotating-crack models, in its representation of the rotation of stress and strain fields in cracked concrete. The inclusion of rigid slip along crack surfaces allows for a divergence between principal stress and principal strain directions in the concrete, with the rotation of stresses and crack directions shown to typically lag behind that of strains. This behavior is found to be consistent with experimentally observed response. Corroboration with data from beam, panel, and shear wall test specimens shows the theory to accurately model response over a wide range of conditions. In general, results are improved relative to those obtained from the modified compression field theory. Current deficiencies in the theory are identified, and possible future work is discussed.

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 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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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