MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W651037656

New Shear Stud Provisions for Composite Beam Design

2005· article· en· W651037656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Samuel Easterling

Bibliographic record

VenueMetropolis and BeyondStructural Engineering Institute · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringComposite constructionEngineeringShear (geology)WeldingCable glandDeckSteel designCold-formed steelComposite numberFinite element methodMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2005 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 2005) will contain significant changes to the shear connector provisions for composite beams. Current specification provisions use shear connector strength models that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The pending provisions incorporate the data base of test results used to develop the current provisions as well as test results conducted in the interim. The focus of this paper, and indeed the changes to the specification, is on welded headed shear studs. Welded, headed shear studs are by far the most common type of shear connector used in the design of composite members in steel frame construction today. Indeed this has been the case for the last 30 years. Provisions for the design of the shear studs have been a part of the AISC specifications since the 1960s. Yet the subject has been researched and debated extensively for the last 17 years. The primary reason for the continued discussion is that since 1987 the AISC specification equations for shear stud strength have been questioned. Specifically, the equations used to determine the reduction in strength due to the use of cold-formed steel deck have been identified as being unconservative. Papers on the subject have appeared in the literature in the United States, Canada and Europe (Jayas and Hosain, 1988; Robinson, 1988; Mottram and Johnson 1990; Lawson 1992; Lloyd and Wright, 1992; Easterling, et al 1993; Van der Sanden, 1995; Johnson and Yuan, 1998.) The shear stud is one of the fundamental components of any composite member in which it is used. It can therefore be argued that a thorough understanding of the performance characteristics of the shear studs is essential if efficient, reliable design of composite members is to take place. A comprehensive research project conducted at Virginia Tech (VT) has addressed this issue (Easterling, et al 1993; Lyons, et al 1994; Roddenbery, et al 2002.) It has been shown through a combination of elemental (push-out) tests, direct shear tests, composite beam tests and subsequent analytical evaluations of these tests that the current AISC specification provisions (AISC 1999) are not representative of true behavior.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetropolis and BeyondStructural Engineering InstituteSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207