Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reviews the differences between the alternative types of structural hollow section products (cold‐formed versus hot‐finished) as they affect structural design in Europe, using the relevant product and design standards, with an emphasis on Rectangular Hollow Sections (RHS). Manufacturers of cold‐formed structural hollow sections (CFSHS) are more numerous, so that their products are more widely available. Hot‐finished structural hollow section (HFSHS) products are typically between 24 % and 54 % more expensive in Germany than their cold‐formed counterparts, the lower differences being for large tonnages – a strong inducement in favour of CFSHS. The price difference may also vary within the European Union. The geometric and product properties which are distinctly unique to CFSHS are presented and shown to offer no restrictions in their use when in compliance with the appropriate clauses in the European standards. These are the influence of corner radii, welding in the corner area, material choice to avoid brittle fracture and suitability for welding CFSHS. A comparison of the structural performance of CFSHS and HFSHS shows equally efficient structural designs for both products. The points covered are the design of compression members – unfilled and concrete‐filled, joint resistance – which typically governs selection of member sizes, as well as fatigue design, fire design and the resistance of braced steel frames to severe seismic loading. CFSHS are shown to be adequate under all these situations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".