MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976082438 · doi:10.1139/l05-045

Gusset plate connections under monotonic and cyclic loading

2005· article· en· W1976082438 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott Walbridge, Gilbert Y. Grondin, Jian Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraceStructural engineeringBracingFinite element methodEngineeringStiffnessParametric statisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical investigation of the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of steel gusset plate connections is conducted using a nonlinear finite element model. Successive versions of the model, which include the effects of framing member stiffness, nonlinear material behaviour, initial imperfections, and bolt slip, are formulated and validated by comparison with test results. A parametric study is then conducted to examine the effects of the load sequence and the interaction between the gusset plate and the brace member under cyclic loading. This investigation demonstrates that the cyclic behaviour of gusset plate connections can be modelled accurately using a simplified finite element model. Gusset plate – brace member subassemblies, wherein the gusset plate is designed as the weak element in compression rather than the brace member, are shown to have stable behaviour under cyclic loading and better energy absorption characteristics than similar subassemblies with the brace member designed as the weak element in compression.Key words: steel, connections, gusset plates, cyclic loading, concentric bracing, buckling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207