MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611534419

Lateral Bracing Connections for C-sections Subjected to Bending

2000· article· en· W2611534419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Beshara, Roger A. LaBoube

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBracingStructural engineeringFlangeBraceCold-formed steelEngineeringBendingCold formingBending momentBuckling
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteenth International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures St. Louis, Missouri U.S.A., October 19-20, 2000 Lateral Bracing Connections for C-Sectiolls Subjected to Bending B. Beshara! and R. A. LaBoube2 The overall behavior under bending moment of cold-formed steel C-sections assemblies was investigated. Each test assembly consisted of C-sections acting as beams having a track to restrain the ends. Lateral bracing to restrain C-sections from rotation was provided at mid-span. To better understand the influence of the brace connection on the bending behavior, an experimental investigation was carried out with particular emphasis placed on the study of the effect of the midspan brace connection on the bending behavior, and the effect of attaching dry wall to the tension flange. For the dry wall test specimens, lateral bracing was also provided at mid-span. The tested moment capacities are compared to predictions based on the 1996 American Iron and Steel Institutes' Specification/or Design o/Cold-formed Steel Structural Members. Introduction The structural behavior of cold-formed steel C-sections subjected to bending is significantly influenced by the member's bracing condition. The primary emphasis of this study was to investigate the effect of the different bracing connections on the C-section's bending behavior. The light-steel framing industry employs typically three different bracing techniques: a channel passing through the web at the mid-span of the C-section, commonly called a bridge channel; steel straps attached with screws to each flange of the C-section at mid-height of a wall stud; and gypsum wallboard attached to each flange of the C-section. This study concentrated on the bridge channel bracing. The bridge channel may be attached to the stud by either welding the bridge channel to the CSection stud (Fig. 1) or by using a screw-attached clip (Fig. 2). This study focused primarily on the screw-attached clip. An experimental study was performed at the Dietrich Design Group's laboratory in Hammond, Indiana. The study investigated the bending capacity of three C-sections depths (3 5/8, 6 and 8 in.) for different bracing connections using compression flange loading applied at 1/3 points along the beam's span. This loading condition may yield conservative tested moment capacities as compared with the AISI Specification. Additional tests are on going to study the effect of using a uniform load condition applied to the tension flange. The bracing connections investigated used an industry standard clip and the STEEL Network BridgeClipTM (Fig. 3). BOtil screw attached and weld attached connections were tested. The industry clip was prepunched to ensure proper placement of the self-drilling screws. The intent of the test program was to provide a comparison between the behavior of various bracing connections, not to justify the AISI design equations. I Structural Engineer, Dietrich Design Group, Hammond, IN. Formerly M.A.Sc. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada 2 Distinguished Teaching Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207