Pemodelan dan Analisis Perilaku Balok Beton Bertulang yang Berbeda Diameter Akibat Variasi Tata Letak Tulangannya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the effect of the layout of reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams with different diameters to understand behavior and layout position of reinforcement produces the maximum of load capacity and ductility. Modeling and analysis using ANSYS program, the experimental test beam type OA1 and A1 from the University of Toronto (Vichio & Shim, 2004) was used as a benchmark and models which varies in layout of reinforcement. The number of models analyzed is a total of fourteen models consisting of seven models without stirrups and seven with stirrups. Beam behavior observed in the form of load capacity, deflection, ductility, stiffness and crack patterns. Results showed that: the layout of reinforcement affects the behavior of reinforced concrete beam; on the same width of reinforcedment, one layer reinforcement has greater load capacity and rigidity but smaller ductility than two layers; the layout of reinforcement in general does not affect the pattern of cracks; the collapse of the beam without stirrups is caused by the diagonal tension and the beam with stirrups by shear and rupture due to the press; the layout of reinforcement produces the largest load capacity and ductility of the largest is model OA1 and OA1,4 on the beams without stirrups and models A1 and A1,5 on beam with stirrups.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".