Current static design guidance for hollow-section joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first edition of the International Institute of Welding (IIW) subcommission XV-E design recommendations on static strength of tubular joints was published in 1981. The second edition was published in 1989, which was the basis for the Cidect (International Committee for the Development and Study of Tubular Structures) design guides on the static strength of tubular joints in the early 1990s. Extensive research on tubular joints has been carried out all over the world in the last 20 years. There has hence been a need to update the current static design rules. This paper summarises the third edition of the IIW static design procedure for welded hollow-section joints. It also briefly describes the major changes made to the previous edition and the relevant research background in terms of validity ranges (yield stress), extension of recommendations (moment resistance and multiplanar joints), formulae harmonisation, chord stress function, overlap joints, and plate to tube joints. Two Cidect design guides were published recently, where the new (2009) IIW static design recommendations were adopted. The previous (1989) IIW static design recommendations still exist in many codes/guides. Explanation is given as to which codes/guides follow the IIW (1989) rules and which follow the IIW (2009) rules, and hence what the major differences are between them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.033 |
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".