MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411618101 · doi:10.51847/6mhzz7glbx

10.51847/6mHzz7glBx

2000· article· en· W4411618101 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompatibility (geochemistry)Ultimate tensile strengthComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to obtain a strong and integrated steel structure, it is necessary to connect the main parts, namely the beams and columns in an appropriate manner so as to be able to guarantee the intended productivity.The integrity and cohesion between the main parts can be made feasible via the connections implemented in two forms of welded and bolted but it is worth mentioning that the bolted connections are more widely applied because of the high assembly speed and low costs.The simplest loading type in bolted connections is the state where the connected sheet is subjected to direct tension.Force transferring method in bolted connections is in two forms of bearing and frictional and the present study tries to deal more with the bearing connections.After designing and constructing a small frame, sixteen connection sheets with a fixed thickness of 6 mm and a shield in the present study, clearance from the hole center was taken into consideration and each of the specimens was tested under strain in laboratory environment in such a manner that firstly each specimen was installed and the bolts were placed and tightened by making use of jacks, then the strain force was measured at certain times and recorded by the use of a data logger.The process continued from tension to failure.The result was that the maximum amounts of strength obtained in laboratory tests showed an error range of 15% to 62% in comparison to the theoretical calculation of maximum strength according to the Instruction Manual.Therefore, it can be concluded that the Instruction Manual has followed a very conservative trend so as to main a higher margin of assurance and it is not costeffective because such an error percentage and the increase in the specimen strength rate acquired during laboratory tests in comparison to what is posited theoretically suffer a 25% reduction, for each of the specimens, in case that the coefficients are not applied in calculation relations.Comparing the specimens' characteristics, it is concluded that with the increase in the specimens' widths (W), both the maximum force obtained during the laboratory tests and the Td obtained through solving the relations mentioned in the Instruction Manual undergo an increase; in addition, with a comparison of the specifications regarding the specimens where the holes lie concentrically and with similar specimens where the holes do not exhibit clearance from the center, it was concluded that the hole's clearance of the center brings about a reduction in the maximum force obtained in laboratory and the amount of Td obtained through solving the relations proposed in the Instruction Manual.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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)0.9850.973

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207