Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing use of high strength concrete tied columns in reinforced concrete structure, it is demanded to examine the applicability of the related sections in the current design codes. This experimental study was performed to investigate the behavior of eccentrically loaded high strength concrete columns. Column specimens with concrete strength, 234, 437, 703 kgf/cm2 were tested under monotonically increasing eccentric axial compression. The variables in this test program were the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement, tie configuration, eccentricity, and concrete strength. From a comparison of the results from this test series with both ACI code and canadian code provided, it was concluded as followings.When the test results are compiled with the ACI code provided, flexural dominant zone of experiment is safe in the load moment interaction curve. However, the column specimen, HSQ-E3 with the compressive strength of concrete, 703kgf/㎠, is safe only if the CSA A23.3 code presented is applied. The compressive governing region in the load moment interaction curve of test results dose not give a safety margin as a whole if the ACI code is applied. On the other hand, the resulting experimental curve is close to safe side if MacGregor's Equation is used. Furthermore, the CSA A23.3 code predicted is conservative in the compressive dominant zone. Thus, it is much safer to use the CSA A23.3 code in the estimation of the strength of the reinforced high strength concrete columns.The maximum compressive strain for concrete was found to be in the range of 0.0028 to 0.0036 in compressive block, and it can be considered that ultimate strain of concrete, 0.003, can provide a rational results in the determination of reinforced high strength concrete columns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".