Developing a Plastic Hinge Model for RC Beams Prone to Progressive Collapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The US General Service Administration (GSA) 2013 Guidelines specify the procedures and the minimum requirements for the design and evaluation of the new and existing buildings against progressive collapse due to an instantaneous removal of vertical load bearing elements (i.e., columns). The objective of this study is to assess the modeling parameters for reinforced concrete (RC) beams specified in the GSA 2013. Three types of RC buildings located in high, moderate and low seismic zones in Canada are designed according to the 2010 edition of the National Building Code of Canada. They were designed to have ductile, moderately ductile, and conventional seismic force resisting system (SFRS). In total, 27 three-dimensional finite element models are developed using ABAQUS by considering the design variables, such as span length, depth of the section, and the reinforcement ratio. Nonlinear pushdown analyses are conducted by increasing the vertical displacement at the location where the column is removed. The bending moment at the critical section of the beams is monitored throughout the analysis. Based on the analysis results, moment-rotation curve for beam for each type of the building is proposed. In addition, it is found out in the study that the detailing of the seismic design has significant effect on the progressive collapse resistance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".