MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316555255 · doi:10.1061/9780784412848.188

Effect of Composite Action on the Dynamic Stability of Special Steel Moment Resisting Frames Designed in Seismic Regions

2013· article· en· W2316555255 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Elkady, Dimitrios G. Lignos

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2013 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringComposite numberStiffnessBending momentSlabMaterials scienceMoment (physics)Rotation (mathematics)Action (physics)Beam (structure)BendingFrame (networking)Composite materialEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic assessment of steel frame structures is typically concerned with analytical modeling of the lateral load-resisting system only, ignoring the effect of composite action on its lateral stiffness and strength. Based on a recently developed database for deterioration modeling of steel beams with reduced beam sections (RBS), the effect of composite action on their bending strength and deterioration parameters (e.g. plastic rotation capacity, post capping rotation capacity, rate of cyclic deterioration) under cyclic loading can be quantified. These connections are widely used in United States in design of special steel moment resisting frames. A phenomenological model, which is able to simulate important deterioration modes when a steel component is subjected to cyclic loading, has been modified to incorporate slab effects on moment-rotation characteristics of composite steel beams. The effect of composite action on the collapse capacity of SMFs is demonstrated through a case study of an 8-story steel building.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2013Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207