Stability and design of built-up columns: effect of 2nd order shear forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current design standards for built-up steel members often overlook buckling effects, particularly when 2nd order shear forces in the lacing are substantial. This oversight can lead to overestimated member capacities and inaccurate force predictions. This study explores various nonlinear finite element (FE) models of laced built-up members fabricated from pairs of hot rolled C shaped sections connected by either double (X) or single (diagonal) flat lacing bars. It further investigates the influence of member properties and lacing configurations on the overall stability of the lacing system, explicitly considering axial forces both in compression and tension acting on the lacing elements. The developed FE models were carefully developed and rigorously validated against existing experimental data. A series of parametric studies was performed, and the numerical results were used to evaluate a newly proposed shear force design formula for laced built-up members with both double and single lacing systems. The assessment demonstrates that the proposed formulas provide more adaptable, accurate, and reliable predictions compared to those specified in Eurocode 3, Australian, and American design standards, and are also simpler than the current design rules. • This paper investigates numerical models for laced built-up members made of hot-rolled C-shaped sections with double and single lacing bars; • The study examines the impact of lacing arrangements and axial forces (compression and/or tension) on the overall stability of the lacing system; • Finite element models were carefully developed and validated against existing test data for accuracy; • A proposed shear force design equation for built-up members with double and single lacing systems is evaluated using numerical results; • The proposed equations provide more adaptable, precise, and consistent predictions compared to Eurocode 3, Australian Standards, and American Standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".