MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248857803 · doi:10.1504/ijstructe.2020.105629

Evaluation of ultimate capacity of corrosion damaged reinforced concrete beam-columns using nonlinear sectional analysis

2020· article· en· W4248857803 on OpenAlexaff
Amina Mohammed, Husham Almansour, Beatriz Martín‐Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Structural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionStructural engineeringBeam (structure)Ductility (Earth science)Nonlinear systemMaterials scienceReinforcementCross section (physics)Reinforced concreteConcrete coverConvergence (economics)Ultimate loadNumerical analysisStability (learning theory)Composite materialFinite element methodEngineeringCreepComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simplified nonlinear sectional analysis approach (NLSA) of aged reinforced concrete beam-columns based on numerical integration, enhanced inspection, material testing and/or empirical estimation of materials deterioration due to reinforcement corrosion is proposed. The proposed procedure is an iterative nonlinear technique that uses numerical integration of the sectional stresses and satisfies force equilibrium in every load increment step. The NLSA model incorporates corrosion-induced damage by reducing the steel cross section and ductility, removing the loss of concrete cover, and accounting for the loss of local bond in corrosion-damaged zones. Two case studies are presented to estimate the effects of corrosion on the structural behaviour of reinforced concrete beam-columns by taking into account critical damage states. The model results show good agreement with test results, high numerical stability and consistent convergence for all examined loading cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Structural EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207