Experimental investigation of block shear failure in coped steel beams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively few tests have been conducted to determine the block shear capacity and behaviour of coped steel beam connections. Furthermore, design standards are inconsistent in the way they treat this failure mode and may predict capacities significantly higher than those determined experimentally. To address these issues, 17 full-scale tests were conducted on coped wide-flange beams. Parameters considered in the study include beam end rotation, end and edge distances, and bolt layout. Many of these parameters had not been systematically investigated prior to this research, and the effect of end rotation, i.e., the rotation at the connection due to flexural beam action, had not been examined. It is found that few of these parameters significantly affect the connection capacity, apart from the associated changes in net tension and gross shear areas. Following the laboratory tests, capacity design equations outlined in Canadian, American, European, and Japanese standards were examined. Tests-to-predicted ratios for each standard were calculated and compared. It was found that none of these standards accurately and consistently predict block shear capacity, especially when considering two-line connections.Key words: beams, block shear, bolts, connections, end rotation, rupture, shear, steel, tension, yield.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it