MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396816499 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2024.1.004

Assessment of the impact of column-to-beam strength ratio on seismic response of RC beam-column connections

2024· article· en· W4396816499 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Faouzi Mimouni, D. Kerdal, Lamia Kharroubi

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumn (typography)Beam (structure)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringConnection (principal bundle)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beam-column joints play an important role in the overall resistance of reinforced concrete frames during seismic events. The Earthquakes of Al Asnam on October 10, 1980, and Boumerdes on May 21, 2003 in Algeria, have highlighted the failure of beam-column joints as a cause of building collapse. 3D nonlinear finite element analysis with ANSYS software has been used in order to examine exterior RC beam-column joints under monotonic loading. The research has investigated the influence of the value of the column-to-beam strength ratio (CBSR) of these joints on shear strength and seismic performance of concrete structures by changing the height and longitudinal reinforcement of the beam while keeping column dimensions constant. It has been shown that the beam-column depth ratio and the beam longitudinal reinforcement ratio have a significant effect on the shear capacity and seismic behaviour of exterior beam-column joints. An appropriate value of the flexural strength ratio between the column and beam is crucial in order to establish a "strong column-weak beam" mechanism in reinforced concrete frames, because inadequate values can lead to premature failure or reduced shear capacity at the junction. The Algerian seismic code – RPA99/version2003 suggests a minimum value of column-to-beam strength ratio equal to 1.25 at joints for seismic design when building codes in other countries call for higher ratios. Nevertheless, this approach might not accurately represent the actual behaviour and could constrain the optimal performance of structures.

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 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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