MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410487081 · doi:10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100682

Performance of connection joints of beam-column structure using Ultra-high-performance concrete under full-scale tests

2025· article· en· W4410487081 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Krairerk Aiamsri, Teerasak Yaowarat, Suksun Horpibulsuk, Apichat Suddeepong, Apinun Buritatum, Artit Udomchai, Kirati Nitichote

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopments in the Built Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsConnection (principal bundle)Structural engineeringColumn (typography)Beam (structure)Materials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the application of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) in precast beam-column joints to improve structural performance. The studied joints included both adequately and inadequately reinforced conditions (strong and weak joints), constructed using UHPC and deformed rebars . The strong joints allowed the rebars to reach their yield strength under the design bending moment, effectively transferring loads and maintaining structural integrity during service conditions. These well-detailed joints exhibited ductile failure behavior, which is a desired characteristic in reinforced concrete design . In contrast, the weak joints experienced premature and brittle failures , underscoring the importance of proper detailing and reinforcement length. Finally, a practical design scheme was developed to determine the appropriate rebar lengths in UHPC connections to ensure structural integrity and safety. Overall, the integration of UHPC into precast concrete joints significantly enhanced bond performance, improved load transfer mechanisms, and contributed to more resilient and reliable construction practices.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopments in the Built EnvironmentSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207