MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Inelastic Model for Analyzing Intermediately Slender Engineered Bamboo/Wood Columns Subjected to Biaxial Bending and Compression

2018· article· en· W2788372814 on OpenAlexaff
Zirui Huang, Zhongfan Chen, Dongsheng Huang, Ying Hei Chui, Yuling Bian

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBamboo properties and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceBambooComposite materialBendingCompression (physics)Structural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The engineered bamboo/wood composites (EBWCs) studied in this work included solid wood, wood-based composites, and bamboo-based composites. The basic characteristic of these products is that they have similar stress-strain relationships in the parallel to the grain direction because of their similar microscopic structures. The asymmetric stress-strain relationship in tension and compression presents a great challenge for the inelastic analysis of intermediately slender EBWC columns. In this study, a novel model was developed for the inelastic analysis of biaxially loaded intermediately slender EBWC columns with rectangular cross sections. The model provides a step by step method to evaluate the nonlinear responses and load-carrying capacities of these columns. Experiments on parallel strand bamboo columns loaded with biaxial eccentric loads were conducted to validate the model. Good agreement between the experimental and predicted results was achieved. The innovative elements of the model were the asymmetric properties of EBWCs in tension and compression, and its simplicity, which lends itself to implementation in engineering design calculations. The present work is an extension of a previous study by Huang et al. (2015a), and its objective was to develop an innovative inelastic analysis model evaluating biaxially loaded intermediately slender EBWC columns with rectangular cross sections.

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 score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicBamboo properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207