Adaptability of triangular TL tower design with Schifflerized angle sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The triangular shape towers have been widly used in transmission line towers.Generally, the profile legs are designed with either angular sections or tubular sections.As the triangular tower vertices are inscribed at 60° internal angle, the connection between the bracings and the profile legs can be achieved by bending 15° inward either the gusset plate or the angle of the profile leg.The manufacturing process of hot rolled 60 o is not yet developed fully, the other alternative of schifflerized angle sections have been adopted in the design of the 60m height Transmission Line tower design.The IS 802 code procedure stipulates the design requirements of TL Towers.However, no special provision for schifflerized angle sections has been made in this code.The Canadian Standardcode-(CSA S16-09) has specified the distinctive provisions for the design of schifflerized sections.The relevant buckling strength equations of Canadian standard and IS 802-2016 are approximately the same.Hence strength and economic viability of schifflerized angle sections with conventional 90 o angle section of the 60-meter tower with broken wire conditions for a span 250 meter have been explored with E-tabs software that the 10% weight savings have been achieved with the schifflerized angle sections for the same strength of the conventional angle sections.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".