MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Study of Offset HSS Connections

2006· article· en· W2091364986 on OpenAlexaff
J. L. Dawe, Yi Liu, R. Zhang, A. Dukuze

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Wood CouncilDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChord (peer-to-peer)Structural engineeringTrussFlangeDiagonalWeldingOffset (computer science)PlanarFailure mode and effects analysisMaterials scienceMathematicsEngineeringGeometryComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structural behavior of welded hollow structural sections (HSS) connections in which one member is laterally offset from the plane of a connection is investigated experimentally and compared with corresponding planar connections. Sixteen full-scale test connections, consisting of either T or N configurations fabricated from class C HSS, were tested at load levels comparable with those expected to occur in actual trusses. In all cases the mode of failure was by localized large deflections of the flange face and sidewalls of the compression chord. It was found that in the case of T connections, the reduction in capacity due to offsetting a member by as much as 17% of the width of the chord member from the central plane of the truss was marginal. N configurations, whose diagonal members were offset by 8% of the width of the chord member, showed a slight increase in ultimate strength. The design values obtained using both AISC LRFD and CIDECT specifications are compared with the test results where appropriate.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207