Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation focuses on the flexural strength of circular flange connections in monopoles with particular attention to the role of stiffeners. Four finite element models---(a) 25.4 mm thick flange unstiffened connection, (b) 25.4 mm thick flange stiffened connection, (c) 19.1 mm thick flange unstiffened connection and (d) 19.1 mm thick flange stiffened connection, with eight 25.4 mm diameter bolts for each connection, were developed. The finite element models were validated by comparing the finite element failure loads, deflections and strains with experimental values. Five test specimens were 25.4 mm thick stiffened flange connections (with different orientations of stiffeners), three test specimens were unstiffened 25.4 mm thick flange connections, and the last two were unstiffened 19.1 mm thick flange connections---all connected by eight 25.4 mm ASTM A325 bolts. The 3-D finite element models predicted the ultimate strength of the flange connections well, matching the experimental values. A design example using T-stub analysis and yield line method is included. Using the yield line theory, the thickness required for stiffened connection is found to be 22% less than that for unstiffened connection. For the same flange thickness, stiffened connections are stronger by 68%. It is suggested that for preliminary design of flange connections, T-stub method can be used. Yield line method can then be applied for an accurate design. If necessary this can be supplemented by finite element analysis.Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2003 .N34. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-02, page: 0639. Adviser: Murty K. S. Madugula. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2003.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".