MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285289915 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2022.6.001

The behavior of self compacting concrete exterior beam-column joints with a variation of shear reinforcement against cyclic lateral loads

2022· article· en· W4285289915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saloma Saloma, Siti Aisyah Nurjannah, Arie Putra Usman, Yakni Idris, Ika Juliantina, Rieske Calista Viegra Effendy

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Sriwijaya
KeywordsReinforcementStructural engineeringDiagonalShear (geology)Materials scienceCompressive strengthStiffnessDuctility (Earth science)Finite element methodJoint (building)Beam (structure)Geotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsCreepGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The beam-column joints are designed to have sufficient capacity under earthquake loads. This requirement needs design details of reinforcement that fulfill the seismic criteria and adequate compaction of concrete. Using Self Compacting Concrete (SCC) material can solve the difficulty of compacting conventional concrete due to the close reinforcement distance. This study aimed to analyze the behavior of the Exterior Beam-column Joints (EBJ) using SCC as materials with a variation of shear reinforcements to withstand cyclic lateral loads. The analysis was carried out using the ANSYS software and the Finite Element Method. The analysis included hysteresis curves, stress contours, ductility, stiffness, and structural strength. The performance of an EBJ without shear reinforcement (EBJ-S1 model) was compared to other EBJs using horizontal (EBJ-S2 model) and diagonal (EBJ-S3 model) shear reinforcements in the joint zones. The results showed that horizontal and diagonal shear reinforcement in the joint zones affected the performance of the EBJs in resisting cyclic lateral loads as the representative of earthquake loads. The EBJ without shear reinforcement could withstand compressive stresses of 3.33 to 17.22 MPa, while both EBJs using horizontal and diagonal shear reinforcement achieved the same compressive stresses range of 3.33 to 20 MPa. The EBJ with diagonal reinforcement performed a wider compressive area of stress contour than the EBJ of horizontal reinforcement. The EBJ-S3 model achieved the highest ductility value of 4.733 with diagonal shear reinforcements because it achieved the highest ultimate displacement of the other EBJ models.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207