MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127818125 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.0437

Performance Analysis of Recycled and Natural Aggregate Concrete Column with Varying Design Parameters

2017· article· en· W3127818125 on OpenAlexaff
Mosharef Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Structural engineeringDuctility (Earth science)Column (typography)CrackingFlexural strengthReinforcementMaterials scienceYield (engineering)Finite element methodFactorial experimentComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsCreepStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>An analytical approach is made to show the performance of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) columns with varying design parameters and to compare these with natural aggregate concrete (NAC) columns. The design parameters taken into consideration include concrete compressive strength, steel yield strength, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and applied axial load. These factors were considered for two different aspect ratios which ensure flexural failure behaviour of column. A two-level factorial analysis was performed, and the columns were modelled and analysed using SeismoStruct, a finite element analysis software. The observed responses include: base shear capacity and displacement at first cracking; first yielding of steel; first crushing of concrete; and the ductility of the column. The pushover analysis was used to determine the performance of each column and statistical software R was used for the analysis of variance (ANOVA), which determines the percent contribution of each design parameter and their interactions on various performance criteria. The analysis shows that, RAC columns perform with improved ductility compared to NAC column.</p>

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207