MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058672248 · doi:10.1002/stco.201300006

Weld design and fabrication for RHS connections

2013· article· en· W2058672248 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew R. McFadden, Min Sun, Jeffrey A. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueSteel Construction · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFillet weldWeldingStructural engineeringLimit state designEngineeringScope (computer science)Mechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 2010 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings has expanded its scope in chapter K “Design of HSS and Box Member Connections” to include a section K4 “Welds of Plates and Branches to Rectangular HSS”. This paper discusses the historical development of the effective weld properties and analyses the structural reliability of the provisions. Additionally, there is a discussion on recent changes in U.S. and Canadian specifications/ codes with regard to the limit states for fillet weld design and the acceptance/rejection of the (1.00 + 0.50 sin1.5 θ ) term. Finally, there is a discussion of the details of an experimental research programme being performed at the University of Toronto in collaboration with AISC to determine the weld effective length in RHS T‐connections under branch in‐plane bending moments. In conclusion, it is found that the inclusion of the (1.00 + 0.50 sin1.5 θ ) term for RHS gapped K‐connections as well as T‐ and X‐connections, based on the limit state of shear failure along the effective throat of the weld, may be unsafe for fillet weld design when used in conjunction with the current effective weld length rules.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSteel ConstructionSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207