Optimized design of fillet welds for CHS joints according to EN 1993‐1‐8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".