Influence of Bolted-Joint Slippage on the Response of Transmission Towers Subjected to Frost-Heave
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slippage of bolted joints is an important factor in the behavior of transmission towers. Field inspections of towers located in the northern regions of Canada show substantial frost-heave induced displacements. The conventional structural analysis software solutions for tower leg axial forces, based on idealized joint behavior under field-observed frost-heave induced displacements, are excessively large, implying tower failure in some cases. However, field inspections show structurally stable towers, and design engineers often consider joint slippage as the main reason for this discrepancy. In this paper, the experimental slippage behavior of transmission-tower bolted joints investigated by Ungkurupanian (2000) is incorporated into a non-linear joint finite element and applied to study the behavior of transmission towers under working loads by using the finite element method. The analysis shows that tower-leg joint slippage has a significant influence on tower behavior by either reducing the load carrying capacity or significantly increasing the deflections under working loads. On the other hand, joint slippage has a positive effect on towers subjected to frost-heave induced displacements, as the resulting member axial forces are much lower than those corresponding to rigid joints.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".