Experimental Investigation of the Cyclic Behavior of Concrete Frame Joints Reinforced with Double-Headed Studs
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
Current ACI and CSA code provisions recommend large amount of shear reinforcement for concrete frame joints in the form of closed hoops and cross ties to ensure confinement of the joint core. This reinforcement, along with the bends required for anchoring the beam bars, lead to significant congestion within the joint. Double-headed studs are proposed as shear reinforcement in lieu of conventional closed hoops and cross ties. Five full-scale frame joint specimens were tested under cyclic loading. One control specimen was designed without shear reinforcement within the joint. Another control specimen was reinforced with closed hoops and cross ties in the joint according to the Canadian Code provisions. The joints of the remaining three specimens were reinforced with two different arrangements and amounts of double-headed studs. In comparison with the joint without shear reinforcement, the specimens reinforced with headed studs exhibited considerable enhancement in the behavior, in terms of strength, ductility, and energy dissipation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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