Comparative Investigation of Concrete Plasticity Models for Nonlinear Finite-Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Specimens
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
The study presents the calibration procedure and the different challenges that arise with the selection of the material and plasticity parameters for the nonlinear finite-element analysis (FEA) of reinforced concrete structures. Two concrete models, the concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) and the concrete smeared cracking (CSC), are considered within the context of the computational model validation to provide a better understanding of their modeling parameters and to investigate their capabilities. The study describes each concrete model, and then previously tested plain and reinforced concrete specimens are analyzed under different loading conditions. The outcomes show that the CDP model predicts the response of the reinforced concrete specimens accurately, while the CSC model fails to capture the response of the analyzed specimens mainly due to convergence issues. Finally, the sensitivity of the numerical results on the fineness of the mesh is also presented, followed by suggestions to overcome this mesh sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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