Arching followed by catenary response of steel shear connections in disproportionate collapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steel shear connections are mainly designed to sustain shear forces. There is limited research assessing the axial response of shear connections, which is important in the evaluation of robustness of steel structures. Structural collapse can be arrested following localized damage if an alternative load path with sufficient capacity is available. In this study, the formation of compressive arching action followed by tensile catenary action is investigated. It is shown that in a column loss scenario, connections may develop significant axial compressive force before catenary action begins; this phenomenon has often been neglected in assessments of connection robustness in the sense that axial force is reported as a tensile action only. The presence of arching action has been confirmed in two experimental programs, and one set is selected for further study using a numerical approach. A simplified analytical model is then presented and compared with the observed axial response of these connections. It is concluded that vertical eccentricity between the centres of rotation of the connections at the two ends of a beam is the principal factor causing the development of a compressive arching force. Another influential parameter that affects the formation of arching action is the stiffness of the surrounding structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".