MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2732745089 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0148

RHS-to-RHS axially loaded X-connections near an open chord end

2017· article· en· W2732745089 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
YuJing Fan, Jeffrey A. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsChord (peer-to-peer)StiffeningStructural engineeringTrussEngineeringWeldingMechanical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In all truss-type welded hollow structural section connection design procedures, the chord member is assumed continuous on both sides of the branch. New limits of applicability have recently been advocated, which specify minimum end distances from an open chord end to achieve the full connection strength. To investigate their suitability for rectangular hollow section (RHS) connections, an experimental program consisting of 12 RHS-to-RHS X-connections subject to branch axial compression was undertaken. For connections near a chord end, a modified yield line mechanism controlled. A proposed analytical model is derived, and by evaluating against the experimental results, is shown to accurately predict the yield loads. An EN 1993-1-8 amendment, transcribed from circular hollow section connections, is deemed excessively conservative, and a closed-form solution for the end distance, presented herein, is recommended for use with RHS connections. Alternatively, providing a cap plate is determined to be an effective stiffening method.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207