Experimental Investigation of Fillet-Welded Joints Subjected to Out-of-Plane Eccentric Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current AISC design specification for welded connections does not make a distinction between joints subjected to eccentric loads in the plane of the weld group, and those subjected to eccentric loads not in the plane of the weld group. To address this issue, results from 60 tests on cruciform joint specimens are presented to examine the effect of combined shear and out-of-plane bending on the strength of fillet welded joints. All specimens are loaded in a three point bending configuration, such that the out-of-plane bending is resisted through a combination of tensile weld stresses and compressive bearing stresses between the connected plates. Two welding filler metals (flux-cored wires, toughness rated E70T7-K2 and non-toughness rated E70T-7), two nominal weld sizes (5/16 inch and 1/2 inch), three nominal load eccentricity ratios (0.75, 1.375 and 2.125) and three plate bearing widths (1.25 inch, 1.75 inch and 2.5 inch) are investigated. Analysis of the test data, in addition to similar data available in the literature, reveals that the current (13th Edition Steel Construction Manual) AISC design tables for eccentrically loaded welds are highly conservative (i.e. test-to-predicted load ratios are, on average, 1.75; with a coefficient of variation = 0.25) for joints with out-of-plane eccentricity. This conservatism is attributed to the disregard of plate bearing stresses that significantly alter the stress distribution in the joint. An alternate approach that explicitly incorporates this bearing effect is proposed, and the resulting strength predictions are determined to be significantly less conservative when compared to the current design standards. Limitations of the research and future work are outlined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".