MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392908198 · doi:10.32920/25412770

Axial Load Behaviour of Non-pierced and Pierced Double Skin Composite Walls Subjected to Elevated Temperature

2024· preprint· en· W4392908198 on OpenAlexaff
Khashayar Rezazadeh Ghayour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffnessStructural engineeringComposite numberMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialStructural loadGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double skin composite walls (DSCWs) consist of two skins of profiled steel sheeting and in-fill of concrete. DSCWs are proposed to act as axial and lateral load resisting elements in buildings. This research concentrates on the structural performance of pierced (having a central opening) and non-pierced DSCWs subjected to elevated temperatures of up to 600 C maintained for steady state duration of two hours. Performance of DSCWs subjected to elevated temperatures is evaluated in terms of physical changes, residual axial load capacity/stiffness, axial load-deformation response, energy absorbing capacity, steel-concrete interaction, and overall failure modes. Analytical models for the axial load capacity of DSCWs are used to compare experimental results. The recommendations of this research will be useful for the development of guidelines for the post-fire axial strength/ stiffness of DSCWs and will aid in the development of fire protection measures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207