MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954743502 · doi:10.1002/stco.201900010

Optimized design of fillet welds for CHS joints according to EN 1993‐1‐8

2019· article· en· W2954743502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSteel Construction · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFillet (mechanics)BraceWeldingFillet weldStructural engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Designing fillet welds using the directional method of EN 1993‐1‐8 requires the consideration of force components, converted to stresses, located in the plane of the weld throat. For circular hollow section (CHS) joints, considering these ”stress components“ can be exceedingly difficult. An approach to applying the directional method to CHS joints is developed in this paper. The directional and simplified methods of EN 1993‐1‐8 are then evaluated against available finite‐element data, validated from recent tests on weld‐critical CHS X‐joints according to the standard evaluation procedure of EN 1990. Despite inherent non‐uniform loading of the weld around the perimeter of the brace, it is shown that taking the total weld length to be effective is safe for both methods. Procedures are given so that these methods can be used to design fillet welds in CHS joints as ”fit‐for‐purpose“, as permitted by EN 1993‐1‐8 and ISO 14346, and new design charts are produced for minimum fillet welds that develop the axial capacity of the connected brace.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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