MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940263829 · doi:10.15866/irea.v7i1.17188

Energy Dissipation Potential of Square Tubular Steel Columns Subjected to Axial Compression

2019· article· en· W2940263829 on OpenAlexaff
R. M. Korol, K.S. Sivakumaran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Engineering Applications (IREA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBucklingDissipationStructural engineeringSquare (algebra)HingeCompression (physics)Range (aeronautics)Materials scienceProgressive collapseForensic engineeringEngineeringComposite materialReinforced concreteMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research into the post-buckling behavior of columns has typically been undertaken to establish safe design standards for compressive resistance rather than to evaluate the potential energy dissipation capacity under conditions of collapse. However, extreme events, such as very hot fires or acts of terrorism may require structural engineers to ascertain the possible consequences of a local failure that could manifest into a global collapse if adequate precautions are not taken in advance. Since a building’s columns are key to the avoidance of such a catastrophe, their collective ability to absorb energy under such conditions would be paramount to saving lives and minimizing the damage done to the structure overall. A test program on the crush resistance of square steel box sections was therefore undertaken to determine the amount of energy that could be absorbed, if subjected to axial loading exceeding maximum strength. For the eleven specimens, possessing slenderness ratios in the low intermediate range, and tested quasi-statically, all but one exhibited crush progression of inward and outward folds propagating over the length. The amount of energy absorbed thus determined far exceeded what might have been expected for H-shaped sections, namely mid-height plastic hinge buckling ultimately compressing into a scissors shape. Our results, therefore suggest that hollow squares are much more desirable as columns than open sections in such circumstances.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Engineering Applications (IREA)Same topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207