MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293073966 · doi:10.11159/iccste22.228

Long Span Steel Structures: Structural Typology Optimization and Enhancement- The Conceptual Design of an Aircraft Hangar

2022· article· en· W4293073966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyConceptual designStructural engineeringSpan (engineering)EngineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-span structures are generally defined as those with a span of tens of meters. They are commonly constructed as steel structures and used for a wide range of building types such as industrial buildings, warehouses, hangars, public halls, agricultural buildings, and arenas. However, the proper design of such structures improves the structural performance along the building time life. Moreover, the structural system has a significant impact on the entire project cost in terms of mass distribution efficiency. Furthermore, the failure consequences of these structures, as large-scale structures, are significant and it often causes huge economical loses at best, when there are no casualties. Consequently, it is highly important to choose the structural solution which provides less overall cost and safe operation of the intended building. This can be achieved by optimizing the structural typology of the building and choose the proper design solutions. For this purpose, this paper deals with the conceptual design of an aircraft hangar as a typical example of longspan steel structures playing a fundamental role in the airports around the world. Nowadays, and along the last decades, the leading manufacturers in the globe at the field of aviation have the passion to produce new generations of aeroplanes in their quest to ensure a better future for this service in the line with the incredible development in this industry and in the air-traffic growth. The new produced models of aircraft are wider, higher, and longer. Thus, that requires new airports facilities which are huge enough to accommodate the new large aircraft models. Heading the same way, this paper elaborated a comparative study of three suggested solutions which are possible structural systems of an aircraft hangar intended to accommodate Airbus A350 and Boeing 777 alternately. The purpose of this study is the comparison of different topologies developed to design the structural system of the building in terms of structural behaviour, the load path, and the cost. The base geometry of the building is a rectangular shape with minimum unobstructed dimensions of 8087m and total approximated free-space plan area of 7000 m 2 . These base dimensions are required to accommodate the above-mentioned models of aircraft. The models of the suggested solutions were built and analysed using the FE software AxisVM. Subsequently, the different solutions were designed, and the structural members were optimized to get higher utilization of the used mass. The study revealed that the second option produced the lighter needed structural steel material with highest mass efficiency. Nevertheless, it exhibited the highest deflection but within the limit. On the other hand, the first solution provides a very good option in the sense of global stability, with a reasonable mass efficiency and relatively large value of the used steel weight and highest lateral stiffness. About the third option, it showed an average steel weight with very accepted displacements values in the three directions, but with small mass efficiency ratio. However, choosing between the options is highly depended on the structural behaviour, the cost and the feasibility of construction and design. It turns out that the first solution is an efficient option in sense of providing a stiff and rigid behaviour. From a cost perspective, the second option least cost option. However, from a practical point of view, the third solution as a spatial truss generated relatively small values of internal forces and reasonable distribution of the stress over the building, and that means easy and more feasibility to design and construct.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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