MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522888952

Seismic behavior of steel plate shear walls with different configurations

2015· article· en· W2522888952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erfan Alavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringDurabilityInfillStiffnessCrackingDuctility (Earth science)Materials scienceShear wallComposite numberShear (geology)Composite materialGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringCreep
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C walling system consisting of two skins of profiled steel sheeting and an infill of concrete is novel form of construction. Such walling system has great potential to be used as gravity and lateral load resisting elements in buildings. The strength, stiffness, ductility and energy absorbing capacity of composite walls subjected to axial, monotonic/cyclic shear and impact loadings will be described based on comprehensive experimental and theoretical investigations. The fire durability of the walls subjected to high temperatures will also be presented based on residual strength/stiffness/energy absorption capacity. The innovative feature of such walls is the use of new engineered high performance concretes (HPCs) with high strength, high ductility (strain hardening capacity) and micro-cracking characteristics developed at Ryerson University for the last few years. Such HPC composite walls have shown superior performance compared to those made with traditional concrete in terms of strength, ductility, energy absorbing capacity and durability as well as post-impact strength/stiffness/ energy absorbing capacity. Analytical models/design equations for the load resistance of composite walls are developed and their performance validated through experimental and finite element modeling.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207