MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213101926 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14656077.v1

Effect of Different Design Parameters on the Cyclic Response of Reduced Beam Sections (RBS) Moment Connections

2021· preprint· en· W4213101926 on OpenAlexaff
Syed Asad Abbus Naqvi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Connection (principal bundle)Moment (physics)Structural engineeringBeam (structure)StiffnessFractional factorial designFactorial experimentMathematicsFinite element methodMaterials scienceEngineeringStatisticsPhysicsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, research has been conducted to develop new types of beamcolumn moment connections, such as Reduced Beam Section (RBS) connections. This study performs a sensitivity analysis of the cyclic response of RBS connections using detailed finite element simulation. The significance of the effect of twenty-one factors is assessed using a statistical design of experiment method. The input factors are related to the material properties or the geometry of the beam-column connection. A two-level fractional factorial design is used to create factor combinations for the sensitivity analysis. The cyclic response of RBS connections is assessed in terms of five response variables, including: the total dissipated energy, initial stiffness, strength degradation rate, maximum moment capacity and rupture index at 7.5% storey drift. The sensitivity analysis results show that the beam depth has the greatest influence on the cyclic response of RBS connections.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207