Lateral torsional buckling of welded wide flange beams under constant moment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structural steel design specification in Canada, CSA S16-14, uses the same equations for the design of rolled and welded shape beams for lateral torsional buckling (LTB). A recent study has shown that the current design equations might overestimate the capacity of welded wide flange (WWF) beams. This paper evaluates the performance of the current design equations in providing LTB capacities of welded I-shape beams (WWF beams). An extensive finite element (FE) analysis is performed for simply supported WWF beams subjected to constant moment. In total, 256 FE models are analyzed and it is observed that both CSA and AISC overestimate the LTB capacity of welded I-shape beams by as much as 37%, particularly when residual stress measured at Lehigh University is used in the analysis. Also, the Eurocode is found to be conservative and the proposed equation by MacPhedran and Grondin in 2011 provides better predictions of LTB strengths of WWF shapes than the current CSA approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".