MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237802124 · doi:10.1002/9781119694489.ch3

Inelastic and Metal Columns

2020· other· en· W4237802124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sukhvarsh Jerath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTangent modulusCritical loadBucklingStructural engineeringModulusTangentMaterials scienceColumn (typography)Elastic modulusMathematicsEngineeringComposite materialGeometryConnection (principal bundle)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tangent modulus or reduced modulus are used instead of the modulus of elasticity in the Euler formula for inelastic buckling of columns. Theories are given to derive these moduli. Shanley's theory of inelastic columns is described where it recommends the use of tangent modulus rather than reduced modulus. Effective lengths can be used to find the critical load for columns having different boundary conditions. Procedure to find the critical load for eccentrically loaded inelastic columns is shown by solving a problem. U.S., Canadian, and Australian codes are mentioned to find critical load for aluminum columns. The graph of slenderness ratio versus critical stress known as column strength curve is plotted using Ramberg-Osgood formula for aluminum columns. Formulas are given to find the critical stress for different aluminum alloy elastic and inelastic columns. Residual stresses are discussed in steel columns. Column strength curves given by Column Research Council, Structural Stability Research Council, and Eurocode3 are shown for steel columns. The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) criteria of allowable stress design (ASD) and the load resistance factor design (LRFD) are used to solve a column problem. Three practice problems, and forty-five references are given at the end of the chapter.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.160 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207