MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7032869828

The performance of structural screws in Canadian Glulam

2012· dissertation· en· W7032869828 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen MIND · 2012
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSolid woodEngineered woodJoistLoad resistanceEuropean standardFlexural strengthButtress
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The development of engineered wood products (EWPs), such as glued laminated timber, has led to the production of structural members with increased strength and spanning capabilities compared with solid sawn lumber and timber, and similar to what one could attain with commonly sized steel and reinforced concrete members. An important reason for the underutilisation of wood for heavy construction is the limitation of the CSA O86 Wood Design Standard especially as it applies to the design of fastenings for highly loaded connections. This thesis addresses the connection design of glulam and sawn wood using structural self-tapping/self-drilling screws from Europe.The CSA–O86 Standard provides formulas for the design of both lag and wood screws in Canada. Recently in Europe structural screws have been developed which combine the advantages of both lag and wood screws. These screws have high load carrying capacities and withdrawal strengths and are also self-tapping/self-drilling, hence in most cases do not need lead holes. However CSA O86 has no specific design provisions for these screws. To assess their viability for use in Canada, two test programs were carried out; the first on the withdrawal resistance of the screws and the second on the performance of inclined screws in joist-to-header connections. Douglas fir Larch(20f-E), Spruce Pine (20f-E) and Nordic Lam (24f-1.9E) glulam in conjunction with a variety of 6, 8, 10 and 12mm diameter European structural screws were used for the withdrawal tests, while the joist to header connections were made of No.2 white pine timber connected by double threaded 8.2mm WT-T screws from SFS intec. In all 1960 withdrawal test were carried out. The test setup and procedure was modelled after ASTM D1761.The joist to header test set-up, involving 14 tests was modelled after ASTM D7147. The main aim of the withdrawal test program was to recommend a generic equation for use in the design of these screw connections with Canadian glulam. In the process the effects of Canadian wood density, depth of penetration, screw diameter and lead holes on the withdrawal resistance of the screws were assessed. The aim of the joist to header connection test program was to compare the performance of dry specimen with that of the same connection in wet timber.The test results demonstrated that the withdrawal strength per unit length increases with denser wood, except 6mm and 8mm in Nordic Lam glulam. The depth of penetration affects the withdrawal strength, where for larger screws an increase of slightly more than double was obtained for 12d penetration compared to 6d.The orientation of the glulam, that is either top or side, was insignificant other than the effect it had on the scatter of the strength results. The use of lead holes was shown for both the 8mm and 10mm not to influence the withdrawal strength. However the lead holes improved the ease of installation for the larger screws, especially in the dense glulam.The tests results were compared with the predicted characteristic and average withdrawal resistance values, which were calculated using formulas found in timber codes around the world, namely CSA O86 (Canada), NDS (USA), Eurocode 5 (Europe), DIN 1052 (German) and from other researchers including Frese and Blaβ (GER), Pirnbacher and Schickhofer (AUT) and McLain (USA). All methods resulted in a reasonable prediction of the withdrawal resistance except for the CSA O86 formula for lag screws which was very conservative. The McLain formula for lag screws provided the closest prediction of the test result, but bearing in mind the variability of wood, all the other methods could be considered as acceptable except for the CSA O86 lag screw equation. Regarding the joist-to-header cross screw connections, the dry tests were measured to have a 35% increase in resistance compared with the wet specimens; furthermore, the Kevarinmäki formula provided the most accurate prediction of the resistance.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,454
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen MINDMême sujetEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessTravaux en français237 207