MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999876561 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0608

Weld design for hollow structural section connections: application to Canadian Standards

2020· article· en· W2999876561 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kyle Tousignant, Jeffrey A. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)WeldingStructural engineeringReliability (semiconductor)Finite element methodAxial symmetryEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a comprehensive review of existing North American research on weld effective lengths for hollow structural section (HSS) connections. Data from 393 experiments and finite-element analyses is analyzed to determine the inherent reliability index (β+) of existing and proposed AISC 360 formulae for weld effective properties in axially loaded rectangular hollow section (RHS) T-, Y- and X-connections, RHS gapped and overlapped K-connections, RHS moment-loaded T-connections, and circular hollow section T-, Y- and X-connections, when used in conjunction with CSA S16-19 Clause 13.13.4.3(a) for design of welds to the ends of HSS branches. Modifications to the formulae are proposed to achieve β+ ≥ 4.0 (the target reliability index for connectors according to Annex B.4 of CSA S16-19), and recommendations are made to facilitate a “fit-for-purpose” design approach for welds to HSS. These are proposed for the next scheduled revision of CSA W59.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207