MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024983901

Testing of extended shear tab connections subjected to shear

2014· dissertation· en· W7024983901 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLogistics and Transportation Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear (geology)Simple shearWeldingShear rateTearingShear and moment diagramSteel design
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shear tab, or single-plate, connections are widely used as simple shear connections in the construction of steel structures. These connections take the form of a single plate shop welded to a supporting column or girder. During erection, the supported beam is moved into place and connected to the shear tab using bolts. In some cases, the eccentricity of the bolt group to the face of the supporting member must be increased due to congestion near the support face or for constructability. In this case, the shear tab connection is considered “extended” (the alternative being conventional). The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) Handbook of Steel Construction and the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual both include pre-designed conventional shear tab connections, the shear resistances of which were computed using the AISC design method [confirmed through testing by Astaneh et al. (1989)]. In addition, the AISC Manual includes a design method for extended configurations.This research aims to verify the accuracy in predicting the shear resistance of extended shear tab connections using a modified method, combining that of CSA S16-09 (2009), the CISC Handbook (2010), and the AISC Manual (2010). The shear resistances of 12 representative shear tab connections were predicted using said method and compared with the measured resistances found through full-scale testing. Four beam-to-column and eight beam-to-girder extended shear tab connections were tested in the Macdonald Engineering Jamieson Structures Laboratory at McGill University. Two of the four beam-to-column tests were governed by flexural tearing of the weld. The welds were sized, as specified in the AISC design method, at 5/8ths of the plate thickness (which assumes 345MPa steel welded with E49 electrodes). This author recommends the welds be sized using a design equation that takes into account the probable yield stress of the steel. The other two beam-to-column tests resulted in plastic local buckling of the bottom edge of the shear tab. The AISC design method allows for the buckling resistance to be calculated using two models: i) lateral torsional buckling or ii) a conservative classical plate buckling. The measured buckling resistances for both tests were significantly better predicted by the latter model. The beam-to-girder tests revealed that two limit states should be accounted for in the design method: i) biaxial buckling of full-height connections, and ii) localized deformation of the supporting girder web and flange for partial-height connections. Design equations are proposed for both of these limit states.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.244 · 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