WEAK AXIS BENDING RESPONSE OF POLYGONAL HOLLOW STEEL SECTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis consists of two sections: the first section evaluates the structural behaviour of hollow structural sections (HSS) including polygonal hollow sections (PHS) and rectangular hollow sections (RHS) under weak-axis four-point loading, and the second section focuses on the complementary structural evaluation of PHS and RHS beams via distributed fiber optic strain sensors (DFOS). The moment capacity of the RHS tested were determined to be higher than that of their companion PHS: 32% higher for an RHS305×203×6.4 versus a PHS305×203×6.4 and 40% higher for an RHS356×254×6.4 versus a PHS356×254×6.4. Local buckling on the compression flange/upper part of the web was observed to be the primary failure mode for all beams. Vertical crushing was observed to be more extensive on PHS beams than on RHS beams due to the flattening and folding of the diagonal corners of the PHS beams. The performance of DFOS was evaluated for thin-walled hollow steel sections under bending and it was determined that it can effectively to identify stress concentrations at loading points and to monitor the evolution of local buckling and other failure modes. The integration of strains from DFOS can be used to calculate beam deflections within the linear elastic response range of a thin-walled beam with the accuracy of these calculation results depending on the coverage of beam along its length. The calculated deflections were observed to be 15-20% lower than deflections measured from conventional linear potentiometers for RHS beams with the optical fibers covering 90% of the beam length; whereas the calculated deflections were seen to be 20-30% lower for PHS beams with a fiber coverage of 82-87% of the beam length.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".