Strength of wind load bearing wall stud-to-track connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cold-formed steel structural members are often used in building construction, with a common application being wind load bearing steel studs. The studs frame into horizontal steel track members at the top and bottom of the wall assembly, with the stud-to-track connection typically being made with self-drilling screws or welds. The design of the wall stud must include a check of the web crippling capacity at the end reactions. The type of end bearing that exists in these stud-to-track connections is not explicitly addressed by the current North American cold-formed steel design documents. Reported in this paper are the results and analysis of a collection of end-one-flange web crippling tests of common stud-to-track connections. The tests show that there are two failure modes: web crippling of the stud, and punch-through of the track flange. Design expressions are proposed to predict the capacity of the connection based on these two modes of failure. The effects of increasing the gap between the stud and the track and the effects of missing screws in the stud-to-track connection are also discussed.Key words: cold-formed steel, steel studs, structural design, connections, web crippling.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".