Effective length factors for solid round members in K-braced and Z-braced antenna towers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on the effective length factors of latticed towers' members have been generally focused on the cross-bracing and single bracing of angle members. Very few analytical studies have been conducted on the effective length factors for solid round members in K-braced and Z-braced latticed towers. This is partly due to the lack of intensive research in this area. As a result, the analysis of latticed towers has lagged behind the State-of-Art methods used in the design of large bridges and buildings. In an attempt to determine the effective length factor for solid round members in K-braced and Z-braced latticed towers, an experimental study has been conducted by the author. A total of 9 towers (one K-braced and eight Z-braced) have been tested in this study. Fourteen tests were conducted on the K-braced tower and the "cut-and-replace" testing method was used, which means that the buckled members were cut out and replaced with new members in order to reuse the same tower for further testing. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2000 .L56. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-03, page: 0748. Adviser: Murty Madugula. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".