MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compressive Behavior of Gusset Plates Connected with Single-Angle Members

2015· article· en· W2132828213 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Cheng, Lei Xu, Sheng Jin, Yu Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNanyang Technological University
KeywordsStructural engineeringBucklingCompressive strengthEccentricity (behavior)BracingParametric statisticsBendingFinite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Materials scienceEngineeringComposite materialBraceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gusset plate connections with single-angle steel members are commonly used in power transmission towers. However, little research has been carried out with regard to the compressive behavior and design of gusset plates connected with single-angle members. Due to the complexity of the connections and load eccentricity, it is difficult to predict the compressive strength of the gusset plates. In this study, two full-scale experimental tests and a numerical parametric study were conducted to investigate the compressive behavior of such gusset plate connections. In the tests, the buckling failure mode and lateral-torsional deformation were observed. Finite-element (FE) models were then established and validated through comparison against the test results. In the parametric study, the effects of gusset plate thickness, unbraced length, distance to bending line, and load on the adjacent bracing member were examined. On the basis of the findings of this study and currently available design methods, two design methods were proposed for predicting the compressive strength of gusset plates connected with single-angle members. Good agreements were observed between the FE and design results in terms of the compressive strength and it was found that one method based on plate buckling gave a better prediction of the strength of gusset plates connected with single-angle members than the other based on effective column.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
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 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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