MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396626665 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0199

Monte Carlo simulation study on the reliability of concrete-filled HSS beam-column design provisions

2024· article· en· W4396626665 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sadaf Rahbarimanesh, Kyle Tousignant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodReliability (semiconductor)Column (typography)Structural engineeringBeam (structure)EngineeringReliability engineeringMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Revisions were recently proposed to the way in which concrete-filled hollow structural section members are handled in CSA S16. These revisions were based on previous research, comparisons to experiments, and a first-order reliability method analysis of existing provisions for compression and flexural members. In this paper, this topic is further expanded by using Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) to determine the inherent reliability of the previous and new design rules for concrete-filled rectangular hollow section (RHS) and circular hollow section (CHS) beam-columns. A representative set of concrete-filled RHS and CHS members with variations in concrete strength, wall slenderness, effective length, and loading eccentricity are analyzed. Using MCS, the reliability index ( β + ) of each is determined over a range of live-to-dead load ratios. Inherent β + values are compared to the code-specified target (i.e., β + = 3.0 per Annex B of CSA S16) and the CSA S16:19 and AISC 360-16 provisions.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207