Study of the Rigidity of a Concentrically Braced Frame Connection Using End Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In steel buildings, concentric braced frames are often used as lateral force resisting systems. In this type of systems, the connection between the beam‐gusset connection and the column may consist of end plates or double‐angle sections. Connection design with double angles is simple and well documented, but it requires the handling of many steel angles. On the other hand, single continuous end plate connection design is based on the use of a single plate, easily produced in the shop leading to a lesser risk of manufacturing errors. The purpose of this research project is to characterize the behaviour and stiffness of three types of connections used in a concentrically loaded braced frame: a standard double angle connection (DAC), a continuous end plate connection only welded to the web of the beam (EPW), and a continuous end plate connection welded all around to perimeter of the beam (EPF). The results of nine full scale samples are presented. These results use a HSS127×127x4.8 brace connected to a W310×45 or W460×52 beam. The beam‐gusset assembly connects to the web or to the flange of a W250×73 column. The connections are subjected to a progressive cyclic loading until failure in a full‐scale assembly in the laboratory. The preliminary results make it possible to characterize and compare the three types of connections attached to the web/flange of the column. In conclusion, the three connections have different stiffness factors. The EPF connection is the most rigid, followed by the DAC connection and finally the EPW connection.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".