Characterization of the hysteretic response of stiffened column bases subjected to axial and flexural loadings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hysteretic behavior of stiffened column base (SCB) connections, featuring vertical stiffeners welded to an exposed base plate , is comprehensively examined. SCB connections typically require a thinner base plate compared to unstiffened exposed column bases (ECB) to achieve comparable flexural strength . Despite their widespread application, the design principles of SCB connections have not been thoroughly evaluated through experimental or analytical studies. To address this gap, a virtual testing environment is developed and validated using an existing experimental database on SCBs. It incorporates variations in anchor rod diameter and arrangement, axial loading levels, and stiffener layouts. Detailed finite element (FE) models reveal that SCBs provide significant rotational stiffness and strength. The performance of SCBs is predominantly influenced by the anchor rods, while their hysteretic behavior combines characteristics of both thin- and thick-plated ECBs. Furthermore, the flexural strength predictions of three widely used design methods for SCBs were evaluated against simulation results. The analysis uncovered discrepancies in the estimated length of the compressive stress block among these methods, which could lead to unconservative designs of SCB connections. To address these limitations, an analytical method is proposed to reliably predict the ultimate strength and base rotations of SCB connections. The results of this study contribute to improving SCB design practices and developing analytical models that accurately capture the mechanics of their hysteretic behavior, supporting further system-level studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".