Effect of material properties on hollow section performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hollow structural sections for onshore steel construction are manufactured in diverse locations around the world, by either a hot-finishing or seamless process or – far more commonly – by cold-forming. The implications of using material by a particular process in various statically loaded or dynamically loaded applications are not fully appreciated. This paper hence reviews some of the key geometric and material properties that are inherent in several common hollow section production standards. Problems that have been encountered with certain cold-formed square and rectangular hollow sections, particularly with regard to hot-dip galvanising in North America and Asia, are elaborated. Besides galvanising, these same sections are now also subject to constraints for seismic applications. The difference in seismic performance between cold-formed, cold-formed and stress-relieved, and hot-finished hollow sections, when used as energy-dissipating members such as braces, has been a point of debate and speculation to date. An experimental project, in which the relative performance of each material type is evaluated by performing inelastic cyclic testing of large-scale tubular braces, is described, with comments on the suitability of various tube material types for concentrically braced steel frames under severe seismic loading. Considering all of these material and production issues, an industry-driven reappraisal of the cold-formed hollow structural section manufacturing specification in North America is being undertaken, which is also presented herein.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".