Practical method to predict the axial capacity of RC columns exposed to standard fire
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
Purpose Existing analytical methods for the evaluation of fire safety of reinforced concrete (RC) structures require extensive knowledge of heat transfer calculations and the finite element method. This paper aims to propose a rational method to predict the axial capacity of RC columns exposed to standard fire. Design/methodology/approach The average temperature distribution along the section height is first predicted for a specific fire scenario. The corresponding distribution of the reduced concrete strength is then integrated to develop expressions to calculate the axial capacity of RC columns exposed to fire from four faces. Findings These expressions provide structural engineers with a rational tool to satisfy the objective-based design clauses specified in the National Code of Canada in lieu of the traditional prescriptive methods. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to standard fire curves and needs to be extended to cover natural fire curves. Originality/value This paper is the first to propose an accurate yet simple method to calculate the axial capacity of columns exposed to standard fire curves. The method can be applied using a simple Excel sheet. It can be further developed to apply to natural fire curves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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